Steve Kunselman « A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 27, 2010

The Politics of Culture: Ann Arbor Launches the National Pilot Fish Fry Festival

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

I like Constance Crump’s thoughtful writing. I particularly like writers who, with a simple question, can get me all tangled up in trying to figure out the answer. I first read Crump’s blog post a few days ago. Initially, I didn’t get hooked. Who cares if Austin has music, Sundance has film, Aspen has comedy and the Bay Area has, well, I don’t know how Crump zeroed in on the single festival she chose? Then, Connie Crump Cicked the ball through the uprights when she wrote, “Ann Arbor has football as our signature event, culture-vulture yearnings to the contrary…what brings most people here on a most consistent basis is football.”

Football is our signature event? Our. Signature. Event. Football is the signature event of the University of Michigan. To say football is our signature event is, well, some very co-dependent reasoning. It’s kind of like saying: My neighbor’s a doctor, so medicine is my forte. Before you slacker profs. employed to teach 9 hours per week, 8 months per year—when you’re not on sabbatical or spring break—get your leather briefcases in a bunch, I’ll make sure to give lip service and say what Crump didn’t. Graduation, not sports, is the signature event at colleges and universities. Allegedly.

Now, I’m going to let those of you who aren’t among the inside Scrabble players in higher education in on a dirty little secret: fewer and fewer colleges students are graduating. That’s right, after spending an average of $11,000 per year on tuition, room and board, close to half of America’s 18,000,000 undergraduate college students never reach the promised land. If you really want to ferret out a possible explanation for why Americans ages 15-24 read, on average, one book per year, or seven minutes per day, look at graduation rates. Then, consider student-athletes. At some schools, non-white athletes have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than earning an undergraduate degree. Before you feel smug, because, obviously, those colleges are all nestled in states that backed coach Jefferson Davis, hold on to your maize and blue butt-warmer. At the University of Michigan, 83 percent of students graduate, and on average, 73 percent of athletes do. A look at the school’s football program should sober you right up. In that program, 58 percent of the white student-athletes graduate, but just 38 percent of the black players do, according to data from Black Issues in Higher Education.

So it is a big deal that only 38 percent of black football players at U of M graduate? Hell yes it is. According to data from the 2000 Census, someone with a bachelor’s degree earns nearly $1 million more over his or her lifetime than a high school graduate. Census Bureau data show a college graduate can expect to earn $2.1 million working full-time between ages 25 and 64, which demographers call a typical work-life period. A master’s degree-holder is projected to earn $2.5 million, while someone with a professional degree, such as a doctor or lawyer, could make even more — $4.4 million. In contrast, a high school graduate can expect to make $1.2 million during the working years.

Could it be different? You bet. At Boise State University, 24 percent of students graduate, and 54 percent of student athletes graduate. In that school’s football program, 57 of black athletes graduate, and 47 percent of white football players do.

In the higher ed biz, that’s called the “graduation gap,” and excepting Boise State’s record, black student-athletes generally graduate less often than their white teammates. Every time the geeky editors The Chronicle of Higher Education or, (please, God, no) Black Issues in Education feel the need to kick-up some sand at the beach, they publish features about athlete graduation rates in higher education.

Those of you wearing your rose-colored glasses, and who are under the impression that many of the student-athletes who don’t graduate end up turning pro, here’s what The Christian Science Monitor has to say about that:

21% of Division I male athletes want to turn pro.

1% of college athletes go on to play at the professional level.

Football at the University of Michigan, Crump’s so-called “signature event” of Ann Arbor, is about exploitation and big money for the patricians who can afford the tickets, transportation, housing, and who make money off of the people who come to town for the football games, etc.., and not the Saturday afternoon gladiators who play the game. The next time you get invited by Dr. Coleman to one of her comfy lairs at the various stadia, where she hosts donors, politicos and other bigwigs like you, casually bring up the subject of graduation rates of the black athletes. Then run. Fast. Because the burly, yet erudite Deans of the School of Student-Athlete Tutoring will be chasing you. You see, U of M football generates piles of cash for the university and the town on the backs of oodles of black athletes, 62 percent of whom will never enjoy the lifetime earnings income boost an undergraduate degree provides. In her piece, Crump quotes Mary A. Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau: ”It [U of M football] brings in $80 million for eight home games a year. 60 percent (of people who attend) come from outside of Washtenaw County.”

So why doesn’t Ann Arbor have a nationally-recognized festival all its own? Partially, I think, it has to do with this mentality that the University of Michigan is us. And the fact that there are way too many politicos in office who would kill to get an invite to Coleman’s private viewing box, blaxploitation be damned. The University has never been us, and never will be. The University is the shark, circling, swimming, feeding, hunting for great land deals, like our parkland for U of M’s Fuller Road parking garage. Thus, Ann Arbor serves as a Pilot fish of a town, swimming into the shark’s mouth to clean the predator’s teeth. The Stadium bridges fiasco rests squarely on the shoulders of the current mayor and Council as they approved staff-generated Capital Improvement Plans that did not include the replacement of the crumbling bridge. When City Administrator Roger Fraser went to our university neighbor to ask if, perhaps, U of M could chip in on the Stadium Bridge replacement tab—after all tens of thousands visitors travel over the bridge on their way to football and basketball games—the answer was a resounding “No.” Pilot fish, you see, get little in return for their efforts. Pilot fish should be happy they don’t get eaten, right?

Outside Magazine did a feature recently about the 25 best cities to live in, and in Michigan the magazine editors chose Grand Rapids. The editors wrote: “Where do you end up when you want a community with incredible access to the outdoors, affordable homes, and solid jobs?” Here’s how they described GR:

Michigan’s second-largest city will surprise you. For starters, the regional economy is both more diverse and more robust than Detroit’s—and includes everything from furniture (Herman Miller and Steelcase) to health and beauty (Amway) to footwear (Wolverine Worldwide). Plus, despite the state’s overall woes and high unemployment, G.R. is, dare we say, thriving. In the past few years, it’s gained a riverfront luxury hotel, a medical school, and the world’s first LEED-certified museum. What’s more, the county recently set aside 1,500 acres for a downtown park, and Grand Rapids’ newly established ArtPrize competition—the largest art contest in the world by prize money—resulted in 1,200 works of public art on display throughout downtown.

Connie Crump recognizes that Grand Rapids hit gold with ArtPrize:

Sadly, Hash Bash and the Naked Mile compete with Tree Town athletics and arts events for regional and national attention. Thankfully, both are endangered or extinct. Plenty of other local festivals fill the calendar but none have taken the crown as ArtPrize has done for Grand Rapids. After only one year, ArtPrize has established an indelible community identity for the city.

Compare how GR put together its ArtPrize competition with how Ann Arbor launched its Percent for the Arts Program, and chose its first project and artist. About GR Crump writes, “Total community involvement was the key to success for ArtPrize in Grand Rapids last year, says the program’s executive director, Bill Holsinger-Robinson. Having a $250,000 first prize and a total $449,000 purse doesn’t hurt, either, he adds.” At just about the same time GR was putting together its ArtPrize competition, Ann Arbor was appointing a group of insiders to the Public Art Commission, people who would have no problem with a Task Force comprised of hand-picked Municipal Center “stakeholders,” recommending the first project be awarded to a German artist. The city’s web site explains away the hiring of the German artist this way:

Because the water-related project had to be designed in time to be incorporated into the basic infrastructure of the building, the Public Art Task Force decided to commission one artist to begin working on a design immediately. It recommended Herbert Dreiseitl.

Thus, Ann Arbor used a selection process that enraged local artists and shut out, rather than encouraged the participation of large numbers of artists and citizens. Meanwhile, Grand Rapids devised ArtPrize with a process that was described by the program’s executive director, Bill Holsinger-Robinson thusly, “A lot of what we did last year was based upon one-on-one outreach, really — and a lot of trying to stay out of the public’s way and (let them) determine how they were going to participate. Even though art was the focus of the event, the community played on the main stage. We make everything as accessible to participate in as many ways as possible.”

Grand Rapids is becoming a cutting edge community, and Ann Arbor is becoming Little Southfield, a bugie bedroom berg.

Yet, here in A2, our Pilot fish Mayor and Council act as though they could show those Grand Rapids Gramublicans a thing or two about how a cool, cutting edge city works. [Please note: Versions of this same clever strategy are currently being used to try to privatize Huron Hills Golf Course, and to dispose of public land next to the Library downtown.]

First, John Hieftje creates and hand picks a National Festival Task Force from among Hizzoner’s political pals, donors, present political appointees or, better still, his basketball buddies.

Next, Council quickly rubber stamps all of the appointments.

Second Ward Council member, Stephen Rapundalo, when running for re-election in 2011, will refer to the rubber-stamping of mayoral appointments as an example of “efficiency in city government” which he “spearheaded.” Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford will be quoted by Rapundalo as swearing to Zeus that rubber stamping board and commission appointments saves someone, anyone, everyone, really, $15 million dollars. Rapunds will boast (modestly) that the $15 million in savings is, well, “a conservative estimate. It’s probably more, like a brazilian million.” Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins, in her campaign for re-election, will claim to have spearheaded the same rubber stamping initiative, and to have saved the same brazilian million dollars. For good measure, she’ll claim to be safeguarding the money by keeping it in her purse. Third Ward Councilman Steve Kunselman, in his bid for re-election in 2011, will rail ad infinitum against rubber stamping and promise to end it. Someday. Soon. Really. Fifth Ward Councilman, Mike Anglin, will present a resolution to end rubber stamping—only to lack a second. First Ward Council member Sabra Briere will explain in such a way that only the reporter from the AnnArborChronicle.com can understand, why she couldn’t second Anglin’s resolution to end rubber stamping of mayoral appointments. “I was possibly, probably, rarely in favor of Anglin’s proposal,” Briere will email later to confused constituents to whom she’d spoken in support of the resolution.

Next, the National Festival Task Force will meet monthly, and the city staff assigned to “help” the group will decide exactly what kind of festival Ann Arbor should have. This will be done without ever having to bother with a single public hearing. Yet evidence of more efficiency in government, Stephen Rapundalo/Marcia Higgins will claim on their campaign literature. CFO Crawford will tell the eager local press that public hearings cost the city exactly $15 million dollars per year, or at least he thinks they do. Could be more. Could be less. “I’m just not sure I understand the definition of the word ‘cost,’” Crawford will explain.

Then, once festival plans have been finalized, the National Festival Task Force will be replaced by the Ann Arbor National Festival Commission. (For an appointment to this commission, please see above and start practicing your jump shot or starting saving your money). A National Festival Administrator will be hired full-time, and the Administrator’s salary, benefits, private school tuition for up to three children, retirement, vacation, car and clothing allowances would be paid out of the Economic Development Fund, Water and Sewer Fund, with a dash of cash from the Fleet Fund.

Four years later, the Ann Arbor National Festival Commission will announce to a stunned public who’d forgotten there was a National Festival Commission, that the first annual Ann Arbor National Pilot Fish Fry Festival is scheduled to be held on Whitsuntide in the spacious party room at Arbor Brewing Company, with entertainment provided by the members of the Downtown Development Authority, who are renowned for their ability to tell stories, sing, dance and play jokes on taxpayers.

Connie Crump may wonder why Ann Arbor has no national festival to call its own, but in reality the answer is as plain as the fried Pilot fish on her plate.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Comments (7)

August 6, 2010

The Politics of Irony: Dim Bulbs

Filed under: campaigns — Tags: A2Politico, Christopher Taylor, ethics, Eva Rosenwald, John Hieftje, Steve Kunselman, Tappan Middle School — A2 Politico @ 6:18 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 4.9/5 (9 votes cast)

At every voting place in Ann Arbor, there was a 100 foot line drawn and marked plainly with yellow signs. Inside that area, those working the polls for their candidates were not allowed to campaign. Rules, however, are often for the little people:

I recently received the following email from a Ward Three voter:

Dear A2P,

Third Ward Council member Christopher Taylor and his wife, Eva “The Diva” Rosenwald were at Tappan Middle School standing right at the front door of the school, campaigning for John Hieftje. What’s with the standing inside the 100 foot line and scaring up votes?

Sincerely,

A Third Ward Voter

Dear TWV aka Dim Bulb,

You must have missed the Ann Arbor News coverage of the email Taylor sent to his friends on Council awhile back in which he referred to you Third Ward voters as “dim bulbs.” He obviously thought you weren’t bright enough to notice he was standing within the 100 foot area in which campaigning was prohibited. However, be of good cheer, soon, very, very soon, your Council member Christopher Taylor will finish his magnum opus, the Council Ethics Policy he’s been uh….uh….uh….formulating with the utmost large verbage and uh….uh….uh….big-eyed sincerity for months and months and months. The more cynical types out there could conclude that figuring out what’s honest and ethical has been an impossible challenge for him, based on the amount of time Taylor has been at work on the Ethics Policy. I’ve heard he actually refuses to show his work thus far on the Council Ethics Policy to other Council members. Does he think they’re going to copy his work? I’d only worry about copying the work of others and passing it off as his own with one particular Council member. Then again, to be fair, Third Ward Council member Steve Kunselman has had a year to make good on his campaign promises regarding Council ethics, as well. Well, TWV, maybe Taylor’s ethics policy will address breaking the rules during working at polling places. Maybe it will address making campaign promises then welching on them. (Don’t hold your breath, though. I’m expecting the CliffsNotes version of Council Ethics from Mr. Taylor.)

Christopher Taylor’s wife, of course, would be exempt from Council rules. This would mean that she’d possibly continue to stand within the 100 foot line at Tappan Middle School on, near, after or on any day but election day. Divas are notorious for outlandish, yet amusing, behavior. Then again, why complain? They held the door open for a dim bulb like you, right?

Popularity: 25% [?]

Comments (3)

July 23, 2010

The Politics of the Budget: Water Fountain Versus Firefighters

Filed under: political reporting — Tags: Drudge Report, Patricia Lesko, Steve Kunselman — A2 Politico @ 6:36 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

It took the national media to expose the lunacy of the situation and put the incumbent’s spending priorities in their proper perspective. I’ve been asking this question since I launched my campaign in February: Do we refocus city government on the basics or fund luxuries and pet projects, such as the Fuller Road parking garage, then slash citizen services? My answer is always that we need to refocus city government on the basics: responsible spending, services, infrastructure and neighborhoods.

The Drudge Report picked up on a theme of my campaign: The need to fund core services before luxuries. Evidently, MSNBC called Council member Steve Kunselman and Fox News has been trying to interview the incumbent after Matt Drudge posted this link on his news page on July 22nd:

City lays off firefighters, but buys $850,000 ‘water sculpture’…http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/13219

Popularity: 42% [?]

Comments (3)

April 25, 2010

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

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenbelt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 44% [?]

Comments (11)

February 4, 2010

The Politics of Financial Football: Throwing The Hail Mary Pass in the First Quarter

Filed under: campaigns, money — Tags: AnnArbor.com, Christopher Taylor, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Mike Anglin, Roger Fraser, Sabra Briere, Stephen Rapundalo, Steve Kunselman, Tom Crawford — A2 Politico @ 11:55 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

On February 2, 2010, the day I declared to run for mayor, AnnArbor.com posted this piece: “Roger Fraser tells Ann Arbor City Council to set aside politics to make budget decisions.” The City Administrator is quoted in the piece as saying to Mayor and Council:

“I understand that these are politically difficult things to talk about,” Fraser said. “I understand that we have elections every year. I understand that six of you are up for election this year. But I also understand that we’ve got some major issues that need to be resolved in terms of our budget, and something’s got to give.”

Well, yes. Something’s got to give. Rather, someone’s got to give: the taxpayer. Roger Fraser is pushing to have Council members put a city income tax on the ballot. At the January 19, 2010 Budget Committee meeting, Fraser suggested to the members of the Committee, First Ward’s Sabra Briere, Fifth Ward’s Mike Anglin, Second Ward’s Stephen Rapundalo, Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins and Third Ward’s Christopher Taylor, that they had an obligation to float the question of a city income tax.

The Mayor, in attendance, thus making the meeting a quorum, and subject to Open Meetings Act requirements, had this interesting tidbit to add. Whether the question was floated on the August primary ballot or on the November general election ballot would have little impact on how soon any city income tax could be implemented. Well, yes. That’s true. However, we know that in Ann Arbor, mayor and council races are decided in August, in the primary, not in the November general election.

Former Third Ward council member Leigh Greden, who ran opposed, and Second Ward’s Stephen Rapundalo who ran unopposed, tempted the tax gods by coming out in favor of a city income tax during the 2009 primary season. This video comes from AnnArbor.com, and was shot before the August 4, 2009 primary. Note that Roger Fraser says there are 75,000 people who commute into Ann Arbor daily. On January 31, 2010, the Mayor was quoted in AnnArbor.com as saying, “…Ann Arbor has an estimated 70,000 daily commuters.” These numbers come from the July 2009 Plante Moran Income Tx Feasibility Study. In that study, on page 26, the authors document that there are 20,000 commuters who come to work at U of M. The study then concludes there are 54,000 additional people who commute into the City. There is, however, no source for where that number comes from. Furthermore, the study concludes between 2011 and 2015, Ann Arbor will add 4,000 jobs for people to commute to. Between 2006 and 2009, Ann Arbor added a total of 600 jobs.

Roger Fraser estimates that a city income tax could “could raise $7.6 million a year in additional revenue for the city,” according to AnnArbor.com. Of course, there was a July 2009 study to support the idea of putting a city income tax to a vote. In that study by Plante & Moran, the authors write, “Using growth rate assumptions made by City personnel, we projected revenue that would be generated from the current property tax system over the next five years….The analysis has been developed using the best available information concerning financial and demographic trends and conditions. As mentioned above, each model was developed using certain key assumptions and should not be evaluated without a thorough understanding of those assumptions. The assumptions and the accompanying rationale are documented in later sections of this report….”

Here’s where we all need to sit up and pay very close attention: “All assumptions are the responsibility of the City of Ann Arbors’ management based on their best judgment at the time of the study. It is possible that the forecasted results may not be achieved because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected.”

In other words, Roger Fraser’s revenue estimate is not even an estimate. It’s a prognostication in the grand tradition of prognosticators. Plante and Moran predict that the assumptions of growth made by city staff, and on which the study is based, “frequently do not occur as predicted.”

If that doesn’t give you a cold grue, it should. The Plante and Moran study begins with a caveat that explains, quite clearly, that a city income tax is not the panacea for the budget woes of Ann Arbor. In fact, the move to a city income tax could end up providing Ann Arbor less revenue than the current property tax model. And there we’d be, still, facing the alternatives the City Administrator often presents to the people of Ann Arbor through City Council: freeze to death or burn to death. Sell parkland, raise taxes, cut services, or increase water and sewer fees.

Mayor Hieftje took himself off of the Budget Committee. Margie Teall stepped down, as well. However, their decision to try to distance themselves from the disaster that it the city’s fiscal situation is a day late and several million dollars short.

It’s quite clear that for the past several years, the Budget Committee on which they sat, and Council, simply followed the direction of the City Administrator and CFO without question and without performing the due diligence required. For instance, the City Charter mandates monthly statements be delivered to the Budget Committee that summarize the City’s financial position. They were never requested or delivered. Yet, the Mayor and his hand-picked Budget Committee crafted policy, recommended program and service cuts, and made recommendations for the expenditure of over $1.5 billion in tax dollars and fees over the past five years without ever knowing exactly how much money the City had in any given month.

Thanks to the urging of Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman, city staff will be producing monthly reports. According to the AnnArborchronicle.com, this is what long-time Budget Committee Chair, Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins, had to say when it was suggested that the monthly reports be delivered directly to all Council members.

“In discussing how the monthly report should be disseminated, Roger Fraser suggested that it be sent directly to all councilmembers. However, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in in favor of first having the budget committee review it before disseminating it to other councilmembers. She reasoned that the rest of the council might not understand what they were looking at, and that budget committee members would then be in a position to help others on council.”

Is it any wonder Roger Fraser is pushing, shoving and trying to drop-kick a city income tax? At this same meeting, he suggested that City Council survey voter attitudes – such as the survey conducted by AATA concerning that group’s fantasy of a county-wide millage. The City Administrator called allocating money for such a survey “due diligence.”

Due diligence? I call it a waste of time and taxpayer money. Those are marketing surveys designed to find out how to best phrase the ballot question so that the voters will support the measure.

There are three steps that must be taken before we can ever entertain the notion of a city income tax:

1. As I wrote in an earlier entry (“The Politics of Cooking the Books: Ann Arbor as a French Restaurant”), total city revenues are up significantly since 2006. So are total expenses. It’s time to examine every possible opportunity for savings. Overhead is the place to begin. The cost of running City Hall has risen 35 percent since 2006. That is a rate of increase that far outpaces both inflation and the cost of living combined. Over-spending must be checked immediately. There is no moratorium, for instance, on meals out and travel for city staff, while at the same time those same staff bring scenarios to Council and the public to raise revenue by selling parkland and cutting services.

2. All City Council members must be given extensive training in reading and understanding financial statements. It’s no sin to be incapable of understanding a cash flow analysis, and such training would benefit not only the Council members, but the public they serve, as well. It is a sin to vote on the allocation of funds without having first examined and understood the financial situation of the City. All Council members have to know the right questions to ask in order to have the ability to oversee city staff in their use of the tax dollars given them.

3. It’s time for a Mayor who will send Ann Arbor City Administrator Roger Fraser, and CFO Tom Crawford back to sharpen their pencils and to prepare two scenarios: under the auspices of the first, they cut 10 percent of the city’s expenses. Under the second, they cut 20 percent of the city’s expenses.

There’s only one rule: not a single city service may be impacted adversely by the cuts.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Comments (6)

February 2, 2010

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

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

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 37% [?]

Comments (11)

February 1, 2010

The Politics of the Inquisition: Kunselman Has Kwestions

Filed under: money — Tags: A2Politico, Ann Arbor Airport, Budget Committee, Capital Improvement Plan, FITS, Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Roger Fraser, Sabra Briere, Steve Kunselman — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Alright, someday I’ll stop with the K, but for now it’s amusing. Since this is a blog, I figure I should get to amuse myself every now and again. I’ve been impressed with the “new” Third Ward Council member Steve Kunselman. He’d say it was the old Steve Kunselman, but I’d have to disagree. The new Steve Kunselman is coming to City Council with a lists of pointed questions. The latest list concerns the Capital Improvement Plan submitted to City Council for its edification (the usual) and approval (the foregone conclusion) without much real questioning.

Until now.

City Administrator Roger Fraser hasn’t answered this many pointed questions in public since, well, the last time Steve Kunselman asked for specific information.

“So,” you may be muttering, “just what in the name of Frank Lloyd Wright is a Capital Improvement Plan?”

Excellent question. I’m glad you asked.

It’s a fantasy list of building projects on which the City Administrator and staff want to spend millions of our tax dollars. Little kids call their Capital Improvement Plans “Letters to Santa Claus.” Sometimes, staff use the Capital Improvement Plan to let taxpayers in on their behind-the-scenes machinations, such as the expansion of the Ann Arbor Airport. Mayor and Council oked a loan from the General Fund (about $1 million dollars), and that money was used to new build hangars at the Ann Arbor airport. Not just new hangars, but big, new hangars. The kind of hangars that can house corporate jets.

So, you might ask, can a DC-9 land at the Ann Arbor Airport? Why, no, a DC-9 cannot land at our airport. The runway is not long enough. However, page 22 of the CIP includes the airport runway expansion as a FY2011 expense and describes it as urgent. Urgent? Does approval of the CIP mean our City Council is approving the controversial runway expansion? Here’s another bit of CIP info. for taxpayers to chew on, FY2015 includes $800,000 for a terminal expansion to be paid from the airport fund. Airport revenue is down, down, down. Why spend $800K on expanding the terminal?

Here’s one for Sherlock Holmes from Page 23 of the CIP. FITS: This project is labeled as funded. The plan claims $5,365,000 will be paid from the Economic Development Fund in FY2011 for Fuller Road Station (FITS) design construction. Well, the Economic Development Fund doesn’t have $5 million dollars in it, and money for that fund is taken from the General Fund. Where will the Economic Development Fund get the money to pay for this project? I’ll tell you. We’ll be treated to another emergency meeting of the City Council Budget Committee, and the City Administrator will give the depressing news to taxpayers there’s a $5.3 million dollar deficit in the General Fund.

Can you smell the firefighters burning, and taxpayers being given the option of a city income tax, or closing pools, ice rinks, and community and senior centers?

The FITS project is anticipated to cost $14.68 million total and, remember, it’s marked as funded. Where is the $14.68 million in non-city funding coming from? The Mayor was quoted recently in the Ann Arbor Observer as saying the city did not have that money.

Below are the questions Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman appended to the agenda for the Monday City Council meeting for City Administrator Roger Fraser to sing and dance about in public:

Question: The project identified as “800′ Runway Safety Extension” is listed as “urgent” for FY 2011. In addition, approximately $1.4 million of outside funding is proposed. Therefore,

1. Please explain the nature of “urgency” for the Airport runway extension.

2. Will this project allow for heavier and larger aircraft to utilize the airport?

3. Will this project allow for an increase in frequency of flights by existing aircraft utilizing the airport, including aircraft that presently take off with weight limitations (i.e. fuel carrying limitations) at the airport?

4. Has this project been presented to the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees and Planning Commission?

5. Is the primary source of outside funding from the Federal Government? If so, what are the ramifications to the City’s control of airport operations if such funding is accepted? What are the City’s obligations to the Federal Government if such funds are accepted?

Question: The project identified as “Model for Mobility: Fuller Road Station Phase 1 Design/Construction” is listed as “urgent” for FY 2011. In addition, $5,365,000 of funding is estimated to be appropriated from the Economic Development Fund where such funding does not presently exist. Therefore,

1. Please explain and identify why
A). This project is urgent, and

B). The source(s) of the proposed fund transfers to the Economic Development Fund. Do these proposed fund transfers include General funds? Do these proposed fund transfers include funds that are presently intended for mass transit (i.e. AATA)? Do these funds include funds presently in or proposed to be transferred to the Alternative Transportation fund? If so, are any of these proposed funds General funds?

2. Please identify if any funds presently existing (as of FY 2010) in the Economic Development Fund are proposed to fund this project? If so, are these funds “unobligated” and not necessary for Google Parking payments?

In plain English, Steve Kunselman is asking, in public, where the money for this pie-in-the-sky wish list of items is going to come from, because we all know the city’s budget is in deficit, and the cost of simply running our city’s government has risen by $33 million dollars since 2006.

Kunselman’s kwestions are a good start, but without change on Council—Council members equally committed to asking such questions, getting answers, then making capital improvement decisions based on reality, and not the fantasy of spending $300 million in AnnArboropoloy money, our City Administrator and city staff will never be directed to focus less on crafting letters to Santa, and more on where they will find the money to fund maintenance on the buildings and crumbling infrastructure we already have.

It’s the job of Mayor and Council to direct the City Administrator and city staff. For the last decade, as our city’s budget slid into deficit, our infrastructure continued to crumble, and Ann Arbor’s roads earned the dubious honor of being classified as the third worst in the entire state of Michigan, Mayor and Council demonstrated little understanding of the implications associated with over-spending, and over-leveraging. If a single one of them had ever taken an introductory course in economics at college, they would have learned, as students, that economies are cyclical.

Mayor Hieftje, Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins, and First Ward’s Sabra Briere have all said in public, or written to constituents that the economic downtown caught them as a surprise that could not have been anticipated.

Adam Smith, of course, is frowning down on them from that big lecture hall in the sky. Taxpayers and voters are frowning down from slightly closer quarters.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Comments (8)

January 25, 2010

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

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

Rate this posting

Rating: 4.6/5 (5 votes cast)

Ann Arbor is bleeding money.

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

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

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

Sydney

Photo by David Askins, AnnArborChronicle.com

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

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

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

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

Feeling used and manipulated yet?

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

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

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

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

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

Is it me? What information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 34% [?]

Comments (8)

January 21, 2010

How Cheaply Can A Councilmember Be Bought Off?

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

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 24% [?]

Comments (10)

January 6, 2010

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

Filed under: journalism, political reporting, transportation — Tags: A2Politico, AATA's, Ann Arbor City Council, Ann Arbor Observer, AnnArborChronicle.com, David Askins, Eli Cooper, James Kosteva, John Hilton, Judy McGovern, Leigh Greden, Mayor Hieftje, new urbanism, Patricia Garcia, Roger Fraser, Steve Kunselman, trains, transportation — A2 Politico @ 5:51 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 22% [?]

Comments (11)

Older Posts »

A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 27, 2010

The Politics of Culture: Ann Arbor Launches the National Pilot Fish Fry Festival

August 6, 2010

The Politics of Irony: Dim Bulbs

July 23, 2010

The Politics of the Budget: Water Fountain Versus Firefighters

April 25, 2010

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

February 4, 2010

The Politics of Financial Football: Throwing The Hail Mary Pass in the First Quarter

February 2, 2010

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

February 1, 2010

The Politics of the Inquisition: Kunselman Has Kwestions

January 25, 2010

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

January 21, 2010

How Cheaply Can A Councilmember Be Bought Off?

January 6, 2010

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

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

A2Politico.com has a Facebook fan page.

The A2Politico Tip Jar Is Open