LDFA « A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 16, 2010

A2Politico Grillin’ The Media: AA.com Gets the Dunce Cap

Filed under: education, journalism — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor Public School District, Ann Arbor School Board, Ann Arbor SPARK, David Brooks, David Jesse, Iris Salters, Laurel Champion, LDFA, Michael Finney, Michigan Education Association, Pam Byrnes, Rebekah Warren, Roger Fraser, Stephen Postema, Teach for America, WISD — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)

David Jesse is a solid writer. His recent coverage of the Ann Arbor Public School pay frenzy has all of the facts, including a link to to the biggest problem with his piece. There is a link to a spreadsheet that shows quite clearly that there are teachers in the Ann Arbor Public School District who reeled in more than $100K in salary. Before you wring your hands, think about this: the spreadsheet Jesse links to doesn’t have a single name on it. Teachers were identified as “Teacher.” So some “Teacher” in the Ann Arbor Public School District is living large on the public dime. Heck, too many of them are living large, right? Right. This is wrong, right? Before answering, break out your mixology book, whip up a Teacher’s Pet, and let’s have a little chat about your salary envy issues. Here’s another news flash: What the smart kids are talking about when they pass notes about teacher pay is quite different from the focus of David Jesse’s recent piece.

First off, let’s put Jesse’s latest teacher pay frenzy piece into some perspective.

The public school district takes in almost exactly the same amount from each tax dollar that the city takes in from each tax dollar (28 cents). So where is the news headline that exposes that City Attorney Stephen Postema was given a contract by City Council that allows him to moonlight, and earn well over that horrifying $100K threshold? Where are the headlines from the AA.com news hounds that City Administrator Roger Fraser is sitting on a contract that gives him a golden parachute worth $100K? Should he be dismissed from his job? Where’s the spreadsheet that shows how much is being paid to each and every city employee?

Headline: Ann Arbor teachers pulling down $100K. Sigh. Where’s the journalistic beef?

You know what? There are plenty of people living large in Ann Arbor on the public dime. Out of the 700 or so city employees, you can bet your school marm costume that more of them them are living large on the public dime than people employed by the AAPS. Michael Finney’s $250K CEO’s salary over at Ann Arbor SPARK has never been splashed across the headlines at AA.com. Neither has the fact that the LDFA that funds Ann Arbor SPARK has been skimming millions from our public schools. How is funding the LDFA and giving away school dollars for corporate welfare impacting education in Ann Arbor? Of course, nosing into the pay of Michael Finney, and asking pointed questions about the LDFA would make life tough for AnnArbor.com VP Laurel Champion, who sits on the Board at Ann Arbor SPARK.

Next, let’s ask the obvious question: Might there be people teaching in the public schools worth their salt, as it were? How do we know? I’m going to use the M-word: merit. Merit is what the brainy kids are talking about, not teacher pay. In the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic, David Brooks writes in a piece titled “Teachers are Fair Game,”

Today, aided by the realization that teacher quality is what matters most, a new cadre of reformers have come on the scene, many of them bred within the ranks of Teach for America. These are stubborn, data-driven types with a low tolerance for bullshit. The reform environment they find themselves in is both softhearted and hardheaded. They put big emphasis on the teaching relationship, but are absolutely Patton-esque when it comes to dismantling anything that interferes with that relationship. This includes union rules that protect bad and mediocre teachers, teacher contracts that prevent us from determining which educators are good and which need help, and state and federal laws that either impede reform or dump money into the ancien régime.

That’s really why David Jesse’s whole over-blown and over-commented on exposé about teacher pay in Ann Arbor is deeply flawed. Here’s what we really need to know: who are the teachers earning over $100K, and why aren’t there mechanisms in place to accurately evaluate whether all teachers in the AAPS deserve to teach our children. Writing about the fact that teachers earn over $100K is bullshit, as Brooks writes, above. Worse still, like a remake of an already bad film, the Ann Arbor News ran a similar teacher pay piece (David Jesse, in fact, is regurgitating his own reporting from 2007), and that story linked to a similar salary spreadsheet. However, that 2007 spreadsheet was worth its weight in gold stars, because it named names. If you have kids in the public schools, go through the list and you’ll see the results of ancien régime union contracts that reward longevity. One of the worst teachers one of my tots ever had is being paid over $70K per year.

I wrote this in a December 2009 post, when the WISD was trawling for a millage “enhancement” — a gravy train that voters refused to approve.

Washtenaw County school districts alone get half a billion dollars from the state and taxpayers each year to educate 47,000 students. Watkins’s nod to TQM buzzwords such as efficiency and effectiveness are the last thing that we need to focus on. Trying to making a bureaucracy efficient and effective is like herding cats. Equity? How can we address issues of equity without a way to measure whether we’re spending our money wisely?

What needs to be overhauled in Michigan (nationally, actually) are the K-12 teacher compensation, retention and evaluation systems. Overhauling how education is funded, and how the money is handed out is an exercise in futility until there are systems in place to make sure that what taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on yearly is well worth the investment. Does an above average paycheck and better benefits automatically mean we get the “best” teachers in the classroom? Does tenure just guarantee that those one-third of teachers who should really have other jobs, according to the U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan, simply stay put and work their way up the “step” scale toward the top? In Ann Arbor, the top of the step pay scale is currently $87,000 per year. I would advocate for a pay scale for K-12 teachers that topped out at $150,000 per year if there were efficient and effective ways to gauge teacher competency and merit. I agree with Duncan that there are, at any given time, one-third of teachers who just should not be in the classroom, but they are, and in Ann Arbor it’s costing us $43,000,000 every year, because each teacher costs about $120,000 in salary and benefits.

Frankly, if you’re hyperventilating about teacher pay, have another Teacher’s Pet and think for a moment about this: newly elected 18th District State Senator Rebekah Warren was supported by the Michigan Education Association. Warren voted against the state’s Race to the Top (RTTT) legislation she explains on her campaign web site because, “They allow state takeovers of struggling school districts; they also decreased the negotiating room for local school districts with their employees by unilaterally instituting cost increases for teacher retirement programs, which puts pressure on salaries at the local level.”

Representative Pam Byrnes, who received $14,890 in contributions from the MEA between 2004-2009, voted in favor of the RTTT legislation, incurring the wrath of the MEA. During that same period, Rebekah Warren received $2,200 from the MEA, but after Warren’s refusal to support the RTTT legislation, she and not Byrnes, earned the MEA’s 2010 endorsement. On July 26, 2010, the MEA gave Warren a helping hand by posting on the MEA Votes section of their web site about the GLEP postcard (I wrote about the GLEP postcard here.)

From the MEA Votes web site:

A couple particularly sickening highlights [from the GLEP postcard]:

- The latest attack piece on Warren takes her to task for missing 54 out of the thousands of votes held during her term in office. The reason for her missing most of those votes — her honeymoon. That’s pretty low.

- Her opponent, Pam Byrnes, has actually missed more votes in this most recent term than Warren! Warren has only missed three votes out of 1,209, while Byrnes has missed 20!

MEA president Iris Salters sent out a January 2010 memo to MEA affiliate presidents (and one presumes legislators, including Byrnes and Warren whom the MEA had given support) that, “MEA’s final decision is that we cannot recommend to our local association presidents that they sign memorandums of understanding that commit their members to implementing the state’s incomplete and flawed Race to the Top plan.”

The ancien régime had spoken. Any politico who ignored the MEA did so, obviously, at their own peril. However, as David Brooks argues, we need to put emphasis on the teaching relationship, and dismantle anything that interferes with that relationship. “This includes union rules that protect bad and mediocre teachers, teacher contracts that prevent us from determining which educators are good and which need help.”

AA.com’s simple-minded piece was meant to whip up those who visit the AnnArbor.com site into an ignorant frenzy about teacher pay (there is lots of revenue from page views when the folks from Chelsea, Brighton, Howell, and Dexter get whipped up into a frenzy about the AAPS pay policies). The RTTT legislation, the MEA’s efforts to torpedo the RTTT legislation, and Obama’s desire to introduce education reforms that, as David Brooks writes, make teachers fair game, make Jesse’s recent regurgitated reporting little more the same rubbernecking at the same teacher pile-up the Ann Arbor News ”exposed” in 2007.

Instead of education reporting that encourages rubbernecking, I want to read about whether the people currently running for the Ann Arbor School Board favor reforms that will help all of us rest easy so that when teachers employed by the AAPS earn $100K, we’ll know that they richly deserve that pay.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Comments (7)

May 28, 2010

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

Filed under: economic development, taxes — Tags: 21st Century Jobs Fund, Ann Arbor SPARK, Carsten Hohnke, Downtown Development Authority, Labor & Economic Growth, LDFA, Main Street Area Association, Michigan Department of Energy, Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Ned Staebler, Richard King, Samuel L. Goldwyn — A2 Politico @ 11:51 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 59% [?]

Comments (8)

May 18, 2010

The Politics of Responsibility: Taking Credit For Everything and Responsibility For Nothing

Filed under: infrastructure, money — Tags: Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce, Ann Arbor SPARK, LDFA, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Representative John Dingell — A2 Politico @ 12:14 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

Last Friday afternoon, I went to a Meet the Candidate event sponsored by the Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce. There were Chamber members from Ann Arbor, the surrounding townships and cities, as well as national, state and local candidates for office. I had a chance to meet numerous owners of small and medium-sized businesses who not only understand what “responsible spending” means, but who practice it in their own businesses. Yeah, there were lots of Republicans at the event, but you know what? They pay taxes, too, and own businesses. A business in Ann Arbor that provides an individual or a family with an income is an asset to our community. Since 2005, Ann Arbor has seen almost 10 percent of its jobs disappear, and the total number of unemployed residents jump from 8,000 to 16,000 individuals. Despite frittering away millions of tax dollars on economic development boondoggles such as the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK, our city’s residents have significantly fewer job opportunities. On the up side, lots of local politicos and business big wigs have board positions to list on their campaign web sites and professional résumés.

We can’t expect our elected officials to be responsible for the jobs lost in Ann Arbor, can we? Of course we can. And should. Our elected officials willingly push their way to the front during photo shoots done by the local press, and take credit for construction jobs created by building the new Police-Court Building and the Library lot parking garage. Heck, the Mayor and Representative Dingell went hat in hand to the federal government for TIGER grant money to rebuild our Stadium Bridges by touting the number of jobs the work would create—an incredible 448 (TIGER grants are made to shovel ready projects that preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery). 448 jobs in one fell swoop of federal funding for the project. That’s more jobs than have been created in Ann Arbor over the past three years.

I believe we have every reason to expect elected officials to take responsibility for the overall economic health and vitality of our city—or lack thereof. However, that’s not how politics is currently played in our city.

We have politicos who take credit for everything and take responsibility for nothing.

Take the Stadium Bridges. Please.

When I met with Representative John Dingell a few weeks ago, and we spoke about the Stadium Bridges, I made clear my opinion the current state of disrepair of those bridges was in no way his political responsibility. That wet, hot, infrastructural mess has been simmering on the back burner of every local politico and the responsible city staff since 2006. Mr. Dingell was recently quoted in the Press as describing the state the bridges have been allowed to deteriorate by our city staff and local elected officials as “miserable” and “disastrous.” Be that as it may, it was recently reported that Mr. Dingell helped bring the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation to Ann Arbor for a political dog and pony show. All that was missing were the tasty treats one gives to performing politicos.

The whole gang was there for the photo shoot with the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation: Mayor Hieftje, Representative Dingell, Fourth Ward Council members Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins. State Street was closed for the photo shoot, and in the end what Ann Arbor politicos got out of the Washington politico was, well, lots of tea and sympathy. It’s all they deserved.

Now that it’s election season, the Stadium Bridges have become a national emergency, literally. In reality, what we have here is a political mess so toxic that our local officials are willing to stretch the truth to get federal funding for the project. To begin, Ann Arbor lost out on the first round of federal TIGER grant funding because though the City Council and Mayor voted in 2006 to spend $1.5 million dollars on the design of a replacement bridge, the design wasn’t completed in 2006 by the company given the money. So, the project missed the first round of federal funding because, literally, no one followed through and checked on the work of the contractor hired to produce the design. Then, Ann Arbor missed out on a $750,000 grant that could have been used to repair the bridge because Marcia Higgins and Margie Teall never appointed a citizen committee necessary to the application process.

The Mayor works. He has been working on funding the bridge for five years. He was quoted in the press as saying he’s been working on a PILOT program to negotiate voluntary payments in lieu property taxes from the University of Michigan for years. He’s been working to negotiate a deal with DTE so our city’s windmills and solar panels to nowhere can be hooked into the power grid. Our elected officials have been fixing on fixing the roads since George W. Bush was president. Well, we have a Roads Millage Fund that is a fat $19 million dollars, a supplemental road millage that brings in $9 million dollars per year, and roads that will loosen your fillings, dent your tire rims and, generally, make driving from one side of town to the other reminiscent of life as a 19th century settler. Ann Arbor has recreated the long lost era of corduroy roads. We also have a falling down bridge that our fire trucks can’t drive across.

Interestingly, the latest TIGER grant application states that Ann Arbor needs that money in part because there are two fire stations within a short distance of the bridge. Don’t tell the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, or your Burns Park friends, but Fire Station Number 2, on Packard and Stadium, has been closed since 2003. It’s a furniture store house now. Stretching the truth to get federal grant dollars, I would imagine, is de rigeur in some cities, but it shouldn’t be in ours.

Now, we’re being told: “Communities don’t finance projects like the Stadium Bridges on their own. I don’t know of another instance when it happened,” Hieftje said. “We’ve been after those funds for quite some time, but we’re very hopeful now. You can’t do much more than bring the deputy secretary of transportation to town along with the congressman….and we just think it’s something we can make happen.”

It’s the Think Method of bridge repair and road reconstruction. Professor Harold Hill perfected that over in River City, Iowa. Think, Men. Think.

Think about this: The city of San Francisco financed and built the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937, in the midst of a Great Recession. How’d they do it? They floated bonds. Here’s something else for you to think about: why have our elected officials been trying to get financing to repair the Stadium Bridges for five years? Why didn’t they simply float bonds in 2006 as opposed to keeping things quiet about the state of the bridge’s failing beams, then being forced to close a portion of the artery that runs over State Street? Why didn’t they float $22 million in bonds to rebuild the bridge instead of floating bonds to build a new Police-Court building? Why didn’t they float bonds to fix the Stadium Bridges instead of borrowing $56 million dollars to build an underground parking garage we don’t need next to the Fifth Avenue library downtown? Why didn’t they repair the bridge instead of borrowing $30 million dollars to build the Wheeler Center, to house city trucks, some of which are now unable to cross the Stadium Bridges safety?

Contrary to what our politicos would have us believe, competent city leaders all over the United States maintain their roads and repair their bridges from their own city funds, and, when necessary, they float bonds to finance large ticket bridge repairs and replacements. Thanks to a long-term public policy that has put shiny new buildings before road repair/maintenance, and city services, the amount we pay to service long-term debt rose from $934,000 in 2005 to $10 million dollars per year in 2010. Debt service on $10-$15 million dollars in bonds to pay for the Stadium Bridges project would be around $800,000-$1,000,000 per year, or about 1.0-1.3 percent (tip o’ the keyboard to Jim Rees) of the $77 million dollar General Fund.

So why the dog and pony show with the press, Congressman, local politicos and the Deputy Secretary of Transportation? Why include the Ann Arbor taxpayers in the ridiculous French farce of pretending that our bridge can’t be repaired without welfare from the American taxpayers? Why blame the United States Congress for not fishing our local infrastructural fannies out of a fire we kindled all by ourselves and watched burn? At the Chamber of Commerce event last Friday, an official running for state office suggested to me that the current elected officials in Ann Arbor have such unmitigated contempt for the citizenry, that our local politicos didn’t believe they needed to repair the bridge in any big hurry. So, they missed deadlines for grants, gave the bridge design company $1.5 million, and never got a design in return, neglected to appoint citizen committees, and blamed everything on the dearth of federal funding, and a $450,000 dollar annual decrease in state revenue sharing.

Why not? If people will believe the current budget crisis is the result of losing “state revenue sharing,” and the loss of less than $2 million in tax revenue from Pfizer, why shouldn’t our politicos be confident that the public will believe them when they fib and say that “communities don’t fund projects like the Stadium Bridges?” It’s a beautiful lie.

So where’s the University of Michigan on all of this? Refusing to partner with the city because, spokesman James Kosteva pointed out to the press who asked, U of M is busy spending $500,000 to restructure one of our city roads that abuts their campus to suit themselves and their own needs.

The ugly truth is that we need to float bonds to rebuild the bridge, and use our Road Millage Fund money to repair the 187 miles of roads in our city the state classified as in “poor” condition—the third worst roads in Michigan.

How do we make the bond payments?

In the 2010-2011 budget City Council voted to give the IT department additional millions for new electronic toys, and the Fleet Department additional millions for new vehicles. Over the past four years, the IT budget has doubled to almost $7 million dollars per year. IT charges are being used as a tool to skim millions, via inflated IT charges, from other city departments. The IT Department, not surprisingly has a fund surplus of $4 million dollars. Fleet has a fund surplus that has been built up, using a similar scheme of inflating charges, of $7.5 million dollars. Our city has $102,000,000 million in unrestricted surplus tax dollars sitting in the funds of various city departments.

By cutting over-allocations in the city’s budget that allow department to accumulate such large unrestricted surpluses, we would have the money needed for payments on bonds to fix the Stadium Bridges—and then some. Better yet, Council could vote to halt the underground parking garage project and repurpose a portion of those bonds to fix the Stadium Bridges. SEC officials have said the garage bonds may be legally repurposed for use on any capital improvement project in the city. I wrote about a plan to do that, here.

President Obama’s administration has said no to Ann Arbor for federal money to build a new train station on Fuller Road, no to Ann Arbor for federal money for the financially unsound commuter train boondoggle, and no to Ann Arbor for federal money for the Stadium Bridges. The Stadium Bridges are falling down and yet we are still told by the current politicos up for re-election: “You can’t do much more than bring the deputy secretary of transportation to town along with the congressman.” Well, that, and submit an application for federal funding peppered with little white lies.

Maybe bringing the deputy secretary to town along with the congressman is all the current politicos can do. I’m ready and prepared to do much, much more than close traffic on State Street and stand under the Stadium Bridges in a hard hat to get my picture taken with Representative Dingell, Margie Teall and some sympathetic fellow from Washington, D.C. who won’t be the one who chooses which of the only 12 TIGER grant applications will get approved by an administration that seems to be sending a clear message that “free” money in the form of federal funding for our various projects (pie-in-the-sky and otherwise) won’t be forthcoming anytime soon.

Popularity: 57% [?]

Comments (20)

January 22, 2010

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

Filed under: economic development — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor SPARK, AnnArbor.com, LDFA, Malcom Gladwell, Nathan Bomey, New Yorker, Representative John Dingell — A2 Politico @ 5:27 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 30% [?]

Comments (16)

January 4, 2010

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

Filed under: developers, economic development — Tags: A2Politico, Alex de Parry, Ann Arbor SPARK, Baby Boomer, Carsten Hohnke, Concentrate Media, Gen Xers, LDFA, Mark Ouimet, Mayor Hieftje, Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Microsoft, Millenial (Gen Y), Ned Staebler, Pew Social Trend, Rick Snyder, Steve Ballmer — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth is that the majority of Michigan’s current Gen Yers won’t just up and leave Michigan if their “demands” remain unmet. Why? There’s one last bit of research you should keep in mind. According to migration research by the Pew Social Trend group, Michigan is the fifth most “stickiest” state in the union. Just behind Wisconsin by a single percentage point, 67.5 percent of people born in Michigan who are 18 years or older have stayed in Michigan. Conversely, only 22 percent of the people currently living in Michigan who are 18 years or older were born in another state. Sticky is where it’s at for demographers. According to the study, “In the Midwest, nearly half of adult residents say they have spent their entire lives in their hometown.” That, my fellow native Michiganians, is a huge home court advantage that local, not to mention state-wide politicians overlook in favor of attracting new people to Michigan, particularly Gen Yers. It’s a losing battle. That demographic is moving South and West, not into the heartland. Gen Xers will relocate to the Midwest for jobs, and do. Make Ann Arbor dual career couple heaven and the Gen Xers will come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s my suggestion:

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

Popularity: 40% [?]

Comments (25)

December 7, 2009

WHISPER: The Real Reason A2 Fire Chief Hopkins “Retired”

Filed under: Mayor Hieftje, Whisper, best of A2Politico, city council, fire, money — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor Fire Department, Ann Arbor SPARK, Barnett Jones, Chief Sam Hopkins, LDFA, Roger Fraser, Tom Crawford — A2 Politico @ 1:20 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

On September 13th, I wrote about the retirement of Ann Arbor Police Chief Samuel Hopkins. The piece was titled, “Are Your Sirens Going Off? Chief Hopkins Is Leaving “Quietly.’”

I wrote: “Word around the Firehouse is that Ann Arbor Fire Chief Sam Hopkins is retiring. On September 19th, Hopkins will leave “quietly,” City Administrator Roger Fraser told the media. Fraser went on to say, ‘Sam has expressed his firm desire that he be able to leave quietly, with no parties, coffees or other celebrations. We are honoring that.’ I bet Fraser’s honoring that. The last thing our City Administrator, Mayor and Council would want is Sam Hopkins talking to the folks about fire service staffing levels now that he’s not a part of the merry band of ‘Streamliners.’”

I was positive that Fraser kept Hopkins away from the Press because he was terrified that Sam Hopkins would, under the influence of retirement, or even a cup of strong coffee, slip and repeat, loudly, what he wrote in April 2009 in his Department’s monthly newsletter: “I…am concerned about keeping our staffing levels where they are….I do not believe that we can continue to make staffing cuts and still provide the protection to life and property as we are committed to perform.”

Obviously, Hopkins was no Barnett Jones. Police Chief Jones went before Council in May of 2009 and assured Council members that if the lot of them voted to cut police staffing, it would have “no impact.” Jones also assured the girls on Council they could eat as many french fries and Krazy Jim’s Blimpy burgers as they wanted without ever worrying about weight gain. A man in uniform can get away with that kind of thing. Chief Hopkins, it turns out, was not that kind of man in uniform.

My suspicions about why Chief Hopkins was forced to retire “quietly” were confirmed by a source in the Ann Arbor Fire Department at the December 5th City Council retreat on the budget. The source said Hopkins left because he “would not go along with this.” This is our City Council and City Administrator’s proposed “reorganization” of fire service delivery. At the retreat Roger Fraser claimed that the reorganization of the fire service delivery would not be a big service impact because it would only impact “response times to the second truck to arrive.” But Fraser also said Ann Arbor follows fire protocols. Those protocols require that there be a minimum of four people on site before firefighters enter a burning building—two firefighters on the outside of the burning building and two inside.

Pay attention to Rogers Fraser’s trick now, because the fingers never leave the hand.

Roger Fraser then said that Ann Arbor fire trucks are sent out with three firefighters aboard. So Ann Arbor citizens should only expect delays in service when we need firefighters to rescue us from burning buildings. Should Roger Fraser and Council’s “reorganization” plan be adopted, our firefighters will sit, roast marshmallows, and wait for a second truck to arrive before entering a burning building.

Furthermore, when asked if the City had asked for wage concessions from the union Roger Fraser told Council members and the public present they had but had gotten no response. The source from the Fire Department said city officials had asked for a 25 percent wage cut plus payment for healthcare from the remaining 94 firefighters. Roger Fraser proposed a salary freeze, not a pay cut, for himself other non-union staff.

Samuel Hopkins left because he would not go along with service cuts that, Hopkins believed (and wrote), will prevent the Ann Arbor Fire Department from providing protection to life and property. Hopkins obviously believed such cuts and reorganization of services would, literally, kill someone.

The City’s Chief Financial Officer, Tom Crawford, defended the money allocated to economic development at the retreat. Evidently, paying Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Michael Finney $240,ooo per year is more important than paying firefighters to rescue people from burning buildings. Before the fire is at your house, you might like to email Mayor and Council and let them know that while Chief Hopkins left “quietly,” you have no intention of standing by quietly while Roger Fraser guts the Ann Arbor Fire Department and Council members let him do it so they can funnel money that could be used for emergency service to their political friends, political donors, business associates and cronies at Ann Arbor SPARK and the LDFA.

Click here to send your email to Mayor Hieftje and all of our City Council members.

Popularity: 26% [?]

Comments (17)

November 23, 2009

When Welfare Daddies Greatly Exaggerate To Keep Their Benefits

Filed under: money, politics, taxes — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor City Council, Elizabeth Perkins, Google, LDFA, Michael Finney, Mike Reid, Richard King, Rick Snyder, Sandi Smith, Skip Simms, Stephen Rapundalo — A2 Politico @ 7:00 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

On November 20, 2009, Ann Arbor SPARK Managing Director of Marketing and Public Relations, Elizabeth Perkins, posted this piece of propaganda to the AnnArborChronicle.com site. It is typical SPARK scat (and not of the Jazz singing variety). Perkins writes,

In a nutshell, our [SPARK's] 2006-2008 ROI:
•101 project successes – $925 million new investment commitments
•7,054 new jobs and 5,740 jobs retained
•155 innovation start-ups through SPARK Business Accelerator
•Leveraged community investments to $32.5 million — through acquisition of Federal and State of Michigan funding and equipment donation to Michigan Innovation Equipment Depot
•Assisted 350 regional companies with employee searches
•Assisted 3000+ job seekers with employment searches

Did you pause at the spot in the ROI fairytale where Perkins has a break with reality and claims SPARK has created 7,054 new jobs and “retained” 5,740 jobs? In April 2009, LDFA Chair Richard King (the LDFA board members are appointed by Ann Arbor City Council to supervise SPARK) reported to Ann Arbor City Council that SPARK had created 600 jobs since 2006. When the LDFA recently hit up Council for an additional $205,000 to hire a staff member for SPARK to answer the phones and check the email, the November 16th presentation included the number of jobs SPARK had “created” between April 2009 and November 2009: 60.

So, since 2006, SPARK has created 660 new jobs, according to the Chair of the City Council-appointed Board that oversees the entity, and City Council member Stephen Rapundalo. It was Rapundalo, who sits on the LDFA Board, who brought the $205,000 funding resolution to City Council. First Ward Council member Sandi Smith even gave Council member Rapundalo, and Skip Simms, the managing director of entrepreneurial business development at SPARK, an opportunity to take credit for creating 7,054 new jobs when Smith asked a follow-up question about the 60 jobs created. Skip didn’t correct Council member Smith and say that SPARK had created 7,054 jobs. Instead, Simms answered her question about the 60 jobs created.

So what’s going on? Is it 7,054 jobs created or 660 jobs created? To answer that, we’re going to have to bring in another character, former SPARK CEO Rick Snyder.

That’s the same Rick Snyder, who’s now running for Governor, and whose budget reform plan includes:

-Determine priorities in spending
-Create measurable goals for spending priorities
-Create a multi-year budget based upon spending priorities
-Publish regular assessments of progress towards goals
-Identify strengths and weaknesses of programs based upon achievement of goals
-Publish all spending online so citizens can ensure their tax dollars are being spent effectively and responsibly

Snyder was the CEO of SPARK from its creation in July 2006, through May 22, 2009, when he left to concentrate on his political aspirations. The movie will be titled: The Wizard of SPARK goes to Lansing. If you wonder how Snyder would do dealing with billions of public dollars, you need only look as far as how he dealt with a few million public dollars as the CEO of SPARK. Annual reports, issued by SPARK while Rick Snyder was in charge claim the “creation” and “retention” of thousands of jobs. Snyder’s Annual Reports make for better reading than Melville’s Moby Dick—both Snyder and Captain Ahab pursue the White Whale come hell, high water, standard practices of accounting and the inconvenient truth.

In fact, Snyder was still in charge at SPARK in April of 2009 when Richard King went before City Council and (to his credit) told the truth about the actual number of actual jobs created in Ann Arbor between July 2006 and April 2009.

This distinction between promised and actual jobs is a critical one, and one that the SPARK Spin-o-matic Machine, devised and set into motion by Rick Snyder, has never found necessary to distinguish. In fact, SPARK’s PR Director Perkins and SPARK’s CEO Michael Finney, (as did Rick Snyder before them), are in the business of counting their chickens before they’re hatched. They’re not only counting their chickens before they’re hatched, they’re telling taxpayers the fairytale that they’re got 7,054 chickens. Richard King and the LDFA board that oversees our traveling minstrels and bards from SPARK have told the whole truth—that 660 of those eggs have hatched. Richard King also made clear that those 660 eggs would have hatched without a penny’s worth of help from the Ann Arbor taxpayers. So why have our City Council members continued to give money to the LDFA to give to SPARK?

Well, because the lot of them still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the SPARK Job Creation Fairy.

Here is a perfect example of how the Job Creation Fairy works. In 2008, Google came to town promising to create 1,100 jobs by 2011. SPARK, then, took credit for having “created” 1,100 jobs. Press releases were written and flashed over the transom to every newspaper this side of Beijing. It’s almost 2010, and Google officials will no longer speak to the Press about exactly how many employees the company has or will have at the Ann Arbor office. I’ll tell you. There have been about 210 actual jobs created by Google thus far, or 19 percent of the jobs promised. Will Google add 900 more actual jobs during 2010? We can all hope. What no one should do is go around bragging to people that there have been 1,100 jobs “created” by Google’s move to Ann Arbor. That is exactly what SPARK does, and what our local elected officials do. They mislead taxpayers about the actual accomplishments of SPARK so that their friends and political cronies can keep their jobs. Those friends and political cronies then donate money to keep our elected officials in office. Matching up SPARK and LDFA Board member names with names on campaign finance donor records for Ann Arbor’s Mayor, Washtenaw County Commissioners, and Ann Arbor City Council members is an interesting game of connect-the-political appointment to the political donations.

The relationship between City Council, SPARK and the LDFA is a classic political circle jerk from start to finish.

I was amazed when I read Snyder’s budget reform plan for the state of Michigan. Not because I think his ideas are unique in any way, but rather because he implemented few of those same tools during his tenure at SPARK. In fact, in October of 2008 the Treasurer of the LDFA Board resigned over shoddy record keeping, conflicts of interest, accounting irregularities, and lack of internal financial controls at Rick Snyder’s SPARK.

According to the October 2008 piece in the Ann Arbor News, that stick-in-the-economic-development-mud, LDFA Treasurer Mike Reid found, “instances where SPARK employees or family members of employees were paid to consult for their own companies…Mike Reid said he was resigning as treasurer of the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti SmartZone Local Development Finance Authority in protest over what he sees as the board’s failure to hold Spark responsible for ‘pervasive contractual deficiencies’ in its record-keeping and use of funds.” Ouch.

In 2007, about 30 percent of SPARK’s $2.3 million dollar budget came from taxpayers. By 2008, that percentage had risen to 38 percent of a $3 million dollar budget. On November 16th, City Council voted unanimously to give the LDFA a $205,000 handout of our tax dollars to pass on it’s only child, SPARK. All of the money “captured” by the LDFA’s TIF comes from our local public schools. Thus, every dollar the LDFA gives to SPARK is a dollar not available for public education.

I have no doubt that Republican candidate Rick Snyder would rely on the same kinds of tactics as Governor of Michigan that he devised while CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK. Look at his track record: In less time than a single gubernatorial term, Snyder created a legacy of deception, cronyism, and misuse of taxpayer money while at the head of Ann Arbor SPARK. I imagine Rick Snyder would go hog wild doling out political welfare to his political pals, donors and cronies if set loose on our state’s multi-billion dollar budget.

Ann Arbor’s City Council and Mayor have allowed the LDFA to divert millions of tax dollars from public education since 2006, and kept SPARK on the public dole long enough. It’s time for all those Ann Arbor SPARK welfare Mamas and Daddies created by Rick Snyder, and whose six-figure salaries are funded by our local politicos with our tax dollars, to get off welfare and get honest jobs. Hey, maybe SPARK CEO Michael Finney can get one of those jobs he “created.” Unfortunately, such a job probably won’t pay him the $200K per year and great benefits his job at SPARK does.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Comments (22)

November 16, 2009

The Politics of Mooching: Panhandler Asks Council for a $205,000 Hand-out

Filed under: city council, taxes — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor SPARK, Carsten Hohnke, LDFA, Marcia Higgins, Project Grow, Richard King, Stephen Forrest, Stephen Rapundalo, Steve Kunselman, TIF — A2 Politico @ 3:28 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

You’re walking down Main Street on your way to dinner. Ahead, you see a panhandler. He’s well-dressed, well-educated, and ready with a snappy, buzz-word filled presentation to give to you in order to hit you up for a little cash. You recognize the panhandler, because in May 2009 you gave the panhandler $1.08 million dollars, and in June 2009, you gave the panhandler $56,000 dollars more. Since 2006, you’ve given the same panhandler over $3 million dollars. Public money—tax dollars. The panhandler is supposed to give back to the community through a process under the auspices of which the panhandler creates jobs for other panhandlers.

However, training up new panhandlers is expensive, complicated and involves lots of staffing and buzzwords.

The panhandler stops you, and launches into his presentation (you can download it here). “Resolution to Amend the Fiscal Year 2010 SmartZone LDFA Budget for Increased Business Accelerator Services.”

“As you may know,” our panhandler reads from his presentation, “this process of grooming panhandlers and creating jobs involves: events. There’s networking, talent support, entrepreneurial education related to starting one’s own panhandling business, and marketing. Identifying and grooming panhandlers involves lots of paper shuffling.”

In fact that’s why our panhandler is asking for the hand-out. He needs to hire someone to:

“handle general inquiry” from prospective panhandlers (in real life we call this answering the phone and responding to emails)
“to conduct ‘due diligence’” so that he can identify the best panhandlers to offer his services to (in real life, we refer to this activity as weeding out the nut jobs and loonies). Generally, con artists can be spotted pretty readily, but our panhandler prefers to do it over the course of multiple lunch meetings, cocktail gatherings and interviews involving lots of staff.
“customer/partner introductions” so that aspiring panhandlers can meet potential panhandling partners (in real life, this is called picking up the phone and calling people).

So, do you give the panhandler the money? Of course you don’t. For pity’s sake, the public schools just got a huge kick in the proverbial teeth when they came a beggin’ for a handout. Then again, though the tax money belongs to you, you aren’t going to be making the decision on whether to give a handout to this particular panhandler. That will be the decision of the intrepid over-spenders and chronic under-performers on City Council.

So who’s the panhandler? Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo and the Board of the LDFA (The LDFA is the City Council-appointed Board that oversees Ann Arbor SPARK.), both in loco parentis for Ann Arbor SPARK. You remember Ann Arbor SPARK, right? It’s the public-private boondoggle supported by Mayor and Council with your tax dollars that has created no new jobs that would not otherwise have been created, according to the Chair of the LDFA, Richard King. And SPARK has done it all for you since July 2006 for a mere $3+ million dollars. Who could want less for more? It’s a Bernie Madoff Special—no actual job creation in return for millions in public money. How long will it take the public to realize that they’re being robbed?

Tonight, Council member Rapundalo will come before City Council to ask for an additional $205,000 for the LDFA to give to Ann Arbor SPARK “for the purpose of assisting with the creation and acceleration of innovation‐based businesses.” If this relationship between your money, the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK seems overly complicated, it is. Most public-private financing scams involving tax dollars and politicos looking to pad their CVs, involve multiple governing boards and lots of overhead. Ann Arbor SPARK needs money, Daddy. So, the LDFA Board asks Council member Rapundalo to sponsor a resolution for more money for the LDFA, so the LDFA can give the money to SPARK. You following me? If not, that’s exactly the way the fine panhandlers at SPARK, City Council and the LDFA want it.

So why does Ann Arbor SPARK need more money?

The panhandlers at SPARK are having a problem referred to in business buzzword-ology as an “accelerated burn rate.” Let me translate: SPARK officials blew through their money and want some more from the taxpayers. They’re saying they blew through their money because lots of entrepreneurs are begging for their services and oodles of new businesses are being “incubated.” Cool. Here are some ideas for the innovators who work at Ann Arbor SPARK. Don’t have enough money to pay your staff? Have a bake sale, or do one of those car wash fundraisers. Get a loan from a bank. Cut the pay and benefits of your current employees. Start a waiting list for your services until your cash flow situation improves. I have a million ideas that don’t involve bilking the taxpayers through the use of Council Sugar Daddies.

Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke is SPARK Sugar Daddy number one. Hohnke was recently appointed to the SPARK Executive Committee. Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo is SPARK Sugar Daddy number two. Rapundalo sits on the LDFA Board; that group siphons tax money away from our schools through a TIF scheme. The LDFA then “contracts” with SPARK to “provide services.” As of April 2009, 38 percent of SPARKS’ $2.8 million dollar budget was provided by the LDFA (i.e. public tax dollars).

Here is ROI (return on investment) information from the presentation prepared for this evening’s Council meeting by the SPARK staff. It’s frightening in its grammatical vagary.

Return on Investment:
From 2007 to date, the Ann Arbor SPARK Business Accelerator (BA) has provided business acceleration services to nearly 100 start‐up companies. There were 180 entrepreneurs engaged in starting these new companies. Since their engagement with SPARK they have created more than 60 more jobs.

There’s just only little problem: In April of 2009 Richard King shared a little secret with City Council members. The Chair of the LDFA Board confessed that all of the jobs SPARK officials had rushed to take credit for “creating” since 2006 would have been created in the absence of taxpayer funding. Thus, in April of 2009, City Council members learned there was absolutely no reason to allocate any further taxpayer money to fund the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK. Regardless of learning from King that the taxpayers were receiving absolutely zero return on their investment in the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK, in May of 2009, Council members voted in support of a budget that continued to fund the twin boondoggle. Worse, in June of 2009, 30 days after axing the funds for Project Grow, Rapundalo and Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins came to Council and asked for an additional $56,000 of funding for the LDFA. The money was allocated.

Now, Stephen Rapundalo is back asking for another handout from the taxpayers in exchange for, well, nothing.

It’s time Ann Arbor SPARK stopped picking the pockets of Ann Arbor taxpayers, and it’s way past time City Council members stopped pimping for their political cronies at SPARK and the LDFA. It’s time to revoke the LDFA’s TIF, and let SPARK fly free. It’s Third Ward Council member Steve Kunselman’s first meeting back on Council tonight. Will he lead a charge to stop Rapundalo’s highway robbery of taxpayers, or will Kunselman serve his other master? The current Chair of SPARK is Stephen Forrest, Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan, where Steve Kunselman works.

A2PNote: This resolution was passed unanimously at the November 16th meeting.

Feel like you’d like to let Mayor and Council know your opinion about Council member Rapundalo’s panhandling, funding the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK? Email them: JHieftje@a2gov.org;ssmith@a2gov.org; Sbriere@a2gov.org; SRapundalo@a2gov.org; TDerezinski@a2gov.org; CTaylor@a2gov.org; SKunselman@a2gov.org; MHiggins@a2gov.org; MTeall@a2gov.org; CHohnke@a2gov.org; MAnglin@a2gov.org,

Popularity: 20% [?]

Comments (9)

November 4, 2009

Washtenaw County Commissioners to County Residents: Voting on New Taxes Is For Pantywaists

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

On November 3rd, Washtenaw County residents refused to fund a new millage for the Sacred Cow of K-12 education. The earth shook, and the sounds of wailing from county school board trustees could be heard in Calcutta.

Seems some people, alas, weren’t paying attention in class.

On November 3rd, tens of thousands of county residents told the trustees of 10 school boards in the County, as well as the trustees of the WISD, not to mention the celebrity line-up of local politicos who backed the $130,000,000 tax hike for “the kids,” to go fluff their auras. Voters told school officials and their political allies who endorsed the millage (including Ann Arbor County Commissioners Smith, Gunn and Irwin) that it was not the moment for a tax hike.

The very next day, the French aristocrats on the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners got together for a rollicking ”Let Them Eat Cake” party and went right ahead and imposed a new property tax. County Administrator Robert Guenzel is busy printing up t-shirts: “Real Men Impose Their Property Taxes. Voter Approval is for Pantywaists.” The t-shirts may be purchased at many of the local Ann Arbor restaurants where Bobbie G. holds staff meetings, or at Ann Arbor SPARK’s headquarters.

Ann Arbor’s four monarchists on the Washtenaw County Commissioners Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin (currently in the hunt for the 53rd District House seat), and Conan Smith provided half of the eight votes cast in order to impose the new property tax—an Act 88 Millage—to fund economic development and agricultural activities. The tax is expected to raise $608,000 from Washtenaw County residents. It’s a small tax. Tiny. Hardly noticeable. It’s certainly not the $30 million per year the WISD would have raised. So what’s the problem? It’s the principle of the maneuver, or rather the lack of principles associated with the maneuver to which I object.

The new millage will provide $200,000 for Ann Arbor SPARK; $50,000 for SPARK East; $100,000 for the Eastern Leaders Group; $59,000 for 4-H activities; $27,000 for Horticulture Programming; $15,000 for Agricultural Innovation; $15,000 for the Food Systems Economic Partnership; and $137,000 for the county’s Department of Economic Development and Energy activities.

Commissioners Kristin Judge and Wesley Prater voted against the new tax. Meanwhile, Ann Arbor’s four County Commissioners demonstrated their deep commitment to funding agricultural programs from the Act 88 Millage created in 1913 to fund agricultural activities. They voted to give the County’s 4-H program a generous $59,000, and made their political pals at the various economic development boondoggles get by with only $349,000 tax dollars. Foreclosures in Ann Arbor just recently hit the double digits, Michigan is in the top ten states with the most foreclosures in the nation, but the four A2 Commissioners supported the new tax to fund not only “economic development,” but to feed the gaping maw of the county’s own bureaucracy in the form of the Department of Economic Development and Energy Activities.

Pouring tax dollars into public-private “economic development” schemes without independent measurement of the progress of said economic development programs is like pouring water into sand on a beach. One rarely reaches the saturation point. Ever. The real problem is that when local politicos actually demonstrate due diligence and gently enquire after the taxpayers’ money poured into outfits such as SPARK, we discover that the Economic Development Emperor has no clothes. In April of 2009 Richard King, Chair of the LDFA, told Council members that without LDFA funding the 600 jobs SPARK officials take credit for creating over the past three years would have been created anyway. (The LDFA is a City Council-appointed committee that oversees the capture of the property tax money from Ann Arbor’s downtown development district that is funneled to SPARK.)

According to this piece, in the Ann Arbor Business Review, Google rode into town in 2006 promising to create 1,000 jobs by 2011. I actually think some local politicos got so excited by Google’s sexy talk of job creation, the boys had to stay seated during the press conference. Google greedily slurped up tax incentives from the state. Ann Arbor taxpayers footed the bill to have SPARK staff help Google officials find office space in downtown Ann Arbor. Taxpayers also paid to have SPARK staff wipe Google noses and cut their food, as Google executives were obviously incapable of taking care of their own real estate searches and physical needs. To sweeten the deal, taxpayers gave Google up to 400 parking spaces free of charge until 2010 in a nearby parking structure. Listen to Mayor Hieftje on the subject, and he’ll tell you Ann Arbor can’t get companies to locate to downtown without giving away spaces in our publicly owned parking garages.

In March of 2009, Google axed 200 workers in its sales and marketing division. Today, the head of Google won’t discuss hiring plans for the Ann Arbor office. However, a recent piece in the Detroit News reported that Google has created a mere 204 jobs in A2. Local writer Nathan Bomey writes in a March 26, 2009 piece, “But the acknowledgement today that it has committed too many resources to sales functions marks a significant blow to Ann Arbor’s hopes of securing major employment growth via the search engine king.”

SPARK officials spin Google as a SPARK “success story.” The truth is that Google is a perfect example of why it’s irresponsible for elected officials to waste public tax dollars to attract business to Ann Arbor, and why the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners should never have imposed a new tax to fund “economic development.”

Here’s another Google-in-the-making: This comes from the SPARK web site: MEDC, Ann Arbor SPARK, ETCS, MDIT and EMU have collaborated to bring Systems In Motion to the Ann Arbor area. ”Systems In Motion, a Silicon Valley-based IT services firm has chosen to locate a new support center in the Ann Arbor region. Venture-backed Systems In Motion combines the best practices of global service delivery, with strategic investments in intellectual capital and assets built for next generation technology architectures. Systems In Motion will create 1,085 new jobs in the Ann Arbor region over the next five years. Additionally, the company will invest over $15 million in capital.”

Sound familiar?

Ann Arbor’s County Commissioners, then, just voted to impose a new property tax to give tax dollars to SPARK and SPARK East to help the organizations continue with the important work—of creating high-paying jobs for those who work at the economic development outfits. The LDFA’s contract with Spark was for $872,836 during the audited 2007-08 year. $872,836 dollars to create no jobs which would have not otherwise been created. Michael Finney, the CEO of SPARK earns $200K per year plus benefits. In May of 2009, City Council voted to strip Project Grow of its funding. The very next month, the Council voted on a resolution sponsored by Second Ward Council member and LDFA Board member Stephen Rapundalo and Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins, to increase the LDFA’s budget by $25,000.

I seriously doubt that county voters would have approved Robert’s Guenzel’s Act 88 Millage scheme had it come before them on the ballot November 3rd, alongside the WISD millage “enhancement.” Then again, Real Men Impose Their Millages, Sweetie.

Hell, there’s something to admire in a guy who can convince eight elected officials to spit into the faces of 347,000 county taxpayers so he can fund a new county department, and keep tax dollars flowing to his buddies at the “economic development” boondoggles.

Popularity: 20% [?]

Comments (12)

October 5, 2009

Rick Snyder & Carsten Hohnke Twins Separated At Birth?

Filed under: campaigns — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor City Council, AnnArborChronicle.com, buzzwords, Carsten Hohnke, governor's race, Jerry Zandstra, LDFA, Michigan, Richard King, Rick Snyder, Smothers Brothers, SPARK — A2 Politico @ 8:10 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

I don’t hold anything against Republicans. I was raised as one. I have ancestors who voted for Lincoln. I don’t hold anything against Democrats, either. Well, my grandmother always did refer to Franklin Roosevelt as “that man.” However, I’ve supported plenty of Dems. What I’m looking for in a politician is the lowest bollocks quotient possible. I know that’s setting the bar impossibly high, but call me an idealist. I want specifics, not platitudes. I want ideas, not fantasies. I want, in short, a roadmap to how a candidate intends to accomplish what s/he wants to accomplish in office. Big Talkers abound in politics, but I give my votes to the pragmatists—the politicos who can set aside the rhetoric of running for office, and talk about the issues in concrete detail.

I just finished reading through Ann Arbor Republican Rick Snyder’s web site. Good Lord Almighty, the Bollocks-o-meter was off the scale. Then it hit me. Snyder’s “principles,” upon which he is running, are reminiscent of Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke’s “issues.” The similarities are uncanny—a bit frightening, really, considering Carsten ran as a Democrat and Snyder is running as a Republican. On both candidate web sites, generalities abound, paragraphs are liberally peppered with buzzwords, and the sites contain little of actual substance. So get out your bollocks ‘o meter and read on.

First, pull up both web sites up, side-by-side, and prepare for a cold grue to wash over you. Same color scheme, same general logo. Same first name recognition branding. Scary. But it’s when you click through to the information that the real bull-a-palooza begins on both sites.

Rick Snyder

wants to “Fix Michigan’s Broken Government”: “It’s time we reinvent state government so that it runs efﬁciently (buzzword) and serves its citizens as customers. Rick wants to restore ethics, accountability and transparency (buzzword + bollocks) to state and local government.”

Carsten Hohnke

is committed to “Open, Honest Communication” (Note: deliberating via email during open meetings evidently doesn’t count, but that’s way too obvious to dwell on): “We have to do the hard work of having productive conversations (buzz phrase + bollocks) as a community and building a shared vision (buzz phrase) of the future.”

Carsten Hohnke

is also committed to “Fiscal Responsibility”: “ It’s critical that we work towards expanding our regional partnerships and providing a broader range of efficiently delivered, high-quality services (buzz phrase).”

Rick Snyder

wants to “Protect Michigan’s Environment”: “Michigan needs to be a leader in the innovative movement (buzz phrase) towards alternative and cleaner energy.”

Carsten Hohnke

is committed to “Environmental Leadership”: “Ann Arbor should seek to be a leader in environmental stewardship (buzz phrase).”

Rick Snyder

wants to “Restore Cities and Control Urban Sprawl”: “In order for Michigan to truly reinvent itself, its cities and communities must become more vibrant. Rick will work to improve the state’s city centers and create attractive living and working environments for its citizens.” (Two sentences that say absolutely nothing. Total bollocks.)

Carsten Hohnke

is committed to “Strong Neighborhoods and Our Downtown”: “Our neighborhoods and downtown are the anchors of our quality of life (buzz phrase). It’s important that we preserve our neighborhoods by protecting and maintaining our parks, open spaces, and historical districts.”

In essence, we have a candidate for the governor’s seat in Michigan running on campaign issues with the political savvy of of a small town City Council member. I suppose it also means that if Carsten had enough money to loan himself he could run for Governor. However, let’s not forget that Rick Snyder is an Ann Arbor boy, ex-Chair of the SPARK Board and founder of the SPARK boondoggle set up to suckle at the public teat by taking the money Peter (the LDFA) robs from Paul (public schools, libraries and transportation). The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners is considering a new “economic development millage” to fund SPARK, as well.

All this despite the fact that in April of 2009 the AnnArborChronicle.com reported that Richard King, Chair of the LDFA, stood before Ann Arbor City Council told Council members that, “Over the three years of history that had been tracked, around 650 jobs had been created through the SmartZone and SPARK.” A councilmember then asked King, “Would any of those jobs have evolved in the absence of LDFA funding?” King told Council that the jobs would have been created in the absence of LDFA funding.

So what did our City Council do with that crucial bit of information? The very next month, Council members voted to fund the LDFA to the tune of around $950,000.

The SPARK financial boondoggle is Rick Snyder’s legacy to Ann Arbor taxpayers. Carsten Hohnke’s legacy is quickly becoming just a clear. Member of the Hieftje Eight nabbed by the Ann Arbor News in the Council email scandal. Caught congratulating the Mayor at a recent Council meeting for political accomplishments that were non-existent. Running on a platform of buzzwords and bollocks. Thus far accomplishing little of what he promised while he campaigned.

Who was it that Jerry Zandstra, president of Pro-Life Federation of Michigan, endorsed recently? Was it Carsten or Rick? Rick or Carsten. Dick or Tommy. At this point, however, I’m just not sure which Smothers brother is which. I do, however, have little trouble recognizing pure political bollocks when I read it.

On both Carsten and Rick’s web sites.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Comments (2)

A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 16, 2010

A2Politico Grillin’ The Media: AA.com Gets the Dunce Cap

May 28, 2010

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

May 18, 2010

The Politics of Responsibility: Taking Credit For Everything and Responsibility For Nothing

January 22, 2010

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

January 4, 2010

December 7, 2009

WHISPER: The Real Reason A2 Fire Chief Hopkins “Retired”

November 23, 2009

When Welfare Daddies Greatly Exaggerate To Keep Their Benefits

November 16, 2009

The Politics of Mooching: Panhandler Asks Council for a $205,000 Hand-out

November 4, 2009

Washtenaw County Commissioners to County Residents: Voting on New Taxes Is For Pantywaists

October 5, 2009

Rick Snyder & Carsten Hohnke Twins Separated At Birth?

Rick Snyder

Carsten Hohnke

Carsten Hohnke

Rick Snyder

Carsten Hohnke

Rick Snyder

Carsten Hohnke

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

A2Politico.com has a Facebook fan page.

The A2Politico Tip Jar Is Open