A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 27, 2010

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

Filed under: art, politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
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% [?]

April 5, 2010

The Politics of Perks: Residency Must Have Its Privileges

Filed under: best of A2Politico, boards and commissions, city services, taxes — Tags: , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 12:28 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)

When I was a kid, at the beginning of every summer vacation kids in Dearborn, Michigan got a free pool pass, a tag that was sewn on to the proud owner’s swimsuit. Today, Dearborn (population 97,700) has eight outdoor pools and a summer family pool pass costs $90 for residents. Ann Arbor has four public pools (one of which was targeted for closure), and a family pass for residents this year will cost $250. Dearborn has a single public golf course, and on a weekend 18 holes with a cart will cost a resident $28.00. At the Leslie Golf Course in Ann Arbor, 18 holes and a cart cost $38.00, with no break for residents. Dearborn is the 10th largest city in Michigan, and Ann Arbor is the 5th largest. Dearborn has 37,000 residences, and that’s pretty darn close to Ann Arbor’s 45,000 residences. Finally, both Ann Arbor and Dearborn host the University of Michigan and other non-profits (in Dearborn it’s the gigantic Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village). 

Why does it cost 2.5 times more for Ann Arbor residents to buy a summer pool pass than it does for Dearborn residents? Why, for that matter, does the 10th largest city in Michigan have twice as many public pools as the fifth largest city, with its substantially higher per capita property taxes? The answer, of course, is that in Dearborn services and recreational facilities for residents are a major spending priority, and have been for the last 50 years. While Ann Arbor taxpayers are forced to fund a new $47 million dollar Police-Court building, in 1996 Dearborn taxpayers were asked at the polls and agreed overwhelmingly to float a bond to finance a $46 million dollar Cultural Center  for the residents of that city. The Cultural Center includes a 1,200 seat theater, two indoor pools, a climbing wall, a senior center, fitness center and an art gallery among other amenities. It costs a resident family $564 per year to use the Cultural Center.

Being a resident of Dearborn has its privileges. Being a resident of Ann Arbor should have similar privileges, as well. To get there, it will mean changing the direction city staff want to take when spending our tax dollars. Should we follow the staff suggestions in the Capital Improvement Plan and drop $800,000 to update the terminal at ARB (Ann Arbor City Airport) so rich folks can jet in for the football games at U of M, or should we build a new public swimming pool on the south side of Ann Arbor, where there isn’t one? To me, that choice is clear: a new public pool for the residents on the south side of town. Should we pave our roads and rebuild our bridges, or follow the pie-in-the-sky, big buck-little benefit “vision” of city staff planning manager Wendy Rampson, and the misguided members of the city’s Planning Commission, who were quoted in the Press as wringing their hands because “all the entrances to town are ugly?”

The choice is clear to me: we pave our roads and rebuild our bridges. In Rome, there are triumphal arches that mark the entrances to the Eternal City. When our City Administrator conquers the budget and stops over-funding the various intra-governmental city-states, such as Solid Waste, Legal, Water & Sewer and IT, and budgets resident services first and fully, we’ll broach the subject of putting up triumphal arches at the entrances to Ann Arbor. 

Outside of City Hall last week, I ran into a city employee whom I’ve known for several years. This woman is a dynamo and incredibly bright. Standing on that corner, she threw out half a dozen fantastic ideas about how to get more use out of the city facilities we have. The encouragement of healthy living is her passion. Working for the City is her job. The whole time she was talking, I couldn’t help but think of her boss, whom I’d run into just a few moments earlier. Why on earth did this woman answer to someone as unenthusiastic and just plain off-putting as that person? I tried to imagine what it must be like for someone with as much drive and passion as she has working for someone who, it is quite clear, simply collects a paycheck. 

It should come as no surprise to anyone that morale at our City Hall is at the bottom of the fish tank. Employee morale was surveyed not once but twice several years ago (by the local Dension company), and both times the results were abysmal: people who work for the City of Ann Arbor (with the exception of those who work in the City Attorney’s Office and the Downtown Development Authority) indicated on their surveys that they were just plain demoralized. While it’s easy to shrug off the results of two city-wide employee surveys which revealed mass discontent, people who are unhappy in their jobs cost their employers money. In this case, those several hundred city employees who’d rather walk over hot coals than go to work every morning, cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year. How? Employee turnover is the first expense that results from low morale. It can cost up to 30 percent of the employee’s total base salary and benefits to conduct a hiring. Employees with low morale are prone to higher absenteeism, and have little desire to go the extra mile. Studies show that low employee morale comes out in all manner of ways, including outright theft and destruction of property; employees who are demoralized can develop drug and alcohol problems. I’m not writing these things to question the character or work ethic of Ann Arbor’s over 700 city employees. I’m writing this to acknowledge the obvious: the employee morale of those who work for the City has no where to go but up.

And up it must go.

Just to be clear, employee morale is not the purview of either the Mayor or City Council. The City Administrator sees to the day-to-day management of the City, and the day-to-day supervision of city staff. However, the ramifications of low morale appear on the agenda of Council meetings with alarming regularity. Let’s start with early retirement. I’m expecting to retire sometime after the age of 70. You probably have the same plan. The Social Security Administration would, I’m sure, like us to work until well past the age of 75. The enticement to do so is a higher monthly benefit offered albeit for the statistically shorter number of years we’ll live past the age of 75. In the City of Ann Arbor, employees with the requisite number of years worked can retire well before the age of 55. 

In talking to a union representative who bargains on the behalf of city employees, the individual told me quite frankly that members of that union are looking to get out as quickly as possible. I asked why. The answer was what I expected. Thanks to the virtually constant and unchecked threats of layoff made by the City Administrator (unchecked and uncommented upon by our elected officials), Ann Arbor’s city employees look to retire from city service as quickly as possible.  

In 2007 and 2008, Ann Arbor did citizen surveys. The results should give us hope as to what the future could hold for all of us with a focus on good management, accountability and resident services. Despite the fact that our city staff are demoralized and could use prescriptions for anti-depressants, they received high marks from citizens for their professionalism in the course of their duties. This is remarkable when you stop to think about it. They don’t like working for our city government, in general, perhaps even detest the management strategies that have been used over the past half a dozen years, but they push themselves to serve the public. They’re working for us through the pain of demoralization. 

In those same citizen surveys, only 13 percent of residents responded that the level of services they received in exchange for the taxes they paid qualified as an excellent value. That means, in essence, a huge percentage of residents feel that they’re being cheated (tip o’ the keyboard to Angel Morn)  every year out of the services they deserve in exchange for the amount in taxes they pay. 

It doesn’t take very much to imagine the performance and productivity our city staff would deliver if their morale were significantly improved. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that improved employee morale will directly impact the percentage of citizens who feel that the level and quality of services they receive is commensurate with the amount of taxes they are expected to pay.

At the moment, city government is run and tax dollars are allocated as if it is a privilege to live in Ann Arbor.

This mindset has led to the deterioration of our infrastructure, and a multi-million dollar unhealthy reliance on additional taxation (millages) to pay for a bloated managerial bureaucracy addicted to cash surplus mad money, expensive no-bid sweetheart deals, contracts for city work given to political friends, subsidies for developers, and consultants. All the while our city budgets have been balanced on backs of hard-working city staff, by hiking fees for services exponentially, and by small but steady service reductions. 

Why does it cost 2.5 times more for Ann Arbor residents to buy a summer pool pass than it does for Dearborn residents? Why, for that matter, does the 10th largest city in Michigan have twice as many public pools as the fifth largest city, with its substantially higher per capita property taxes? It’s time to ask these questions (among many others), get answers, and shape public policy that revolves around the premise that residency in Ann Arbor must have its privileges as opposed to the current mindset that merely living here is privilege enough.

Popularity: 46% [?]

February 5, 2010

The Politics of Neighbors: You Don’t Get What You Deserve. You Get What You Negotiate.

Filed under: Mayor Hieftje, best of A2Politico, money — Tags: , , , — A2 Politico @ 9:16 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 4.8/5 (12 votes cast)

This piece was originally published in February 2009 by the Ann Arbor News.

In January 2009, the Ann Arbor News reported that: “The University of Michigan wants to help the local economy, but giving the city an in-lieu-of-tax payment isn’t the way to do it, U-M President Mary Sue Coleman said.” Mayor John Hieftje responded to Coleman’s comment by assuring taxpayers: “We’re going to continue to work on that.” He’s had a decade to “work on that,” however. Other members of City Council, such as Fourth Ward’s Council member Marcia Higgins, and Margie Teall and Second Ward’s Steven Rapundalo have had almost that long to “work on that.” 

While the current administration accepts fiscal policy dictates from Dr. Coleman, Ann Arbor taxpayers pay for the bulk of municipal services provided to the University of Michigan. To be fair, U of M does pay for a fraction of some of the services it receives. For instance, in 2008 U of M paid $808,232.78 for fire protection. That amount reimbursed taxpayers for about six percent of the total $13 million dollars spent on fire protection.

Pushing nonprofits to make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is nothing out of the ordinary. Around the U.S., college leaders and city councils have hammered out agreements—under the auspices of so-called PILOT Programs—that provide those communities with millions in annual payments. In some communities, PILOT payments are adjusted annually for inflation. Harvard contributes yearly PILOT payments to the cities of Cambridge, Boston and Watertown. The annual $2.8 million dollar Cambridge-Harvard PILOT payment agreement has been renewed every decade since 1968. MIT has made PILOT payments to Cambridge since 1928.

Nearby Boston has one of the most aggressive PILOT programs in the United States. Officials there believe that if nonprofits can afford to build or expand, they can afford to contribute generously toward municipal services. Over 50% all land in Boston is controlled by non-profits, and in 1999 Harvard agreed to pay that city $40 million dollars over the next 20 years in PILOT payments. In smaller cities, such as Urbana, Illinois, elected officials have crafted PILOT programs to counteract the erosion of their tax bases when colleges and other nonprofits purchased additional property. This is what recently happened when U of M purchased the Pfizer buildings and land, a 170-acre parcel; officials estimate that the city will lose 4-5 percent of its total tax base. The $83.7 million dollar general fund, from which our municipal services are funded, will lose $1.4 million per year in tax revenue beginning in 2010. 

Dr. Coleman suggests the Pfizer facility may create 2000 new jobs over the next ten years. However, before the city recoups any lost property tax revenue from home buyers who may move to Ann Arbor for those jobs, the purchase will allow University of Michigan to expand opportunities to increase revenue from patents and licenses that result from its research activities. 

In 2004, U of M spent $752,527,056 dollars on sponsored research expenditures, according to the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). That same year, U of M filed 149 patents, executed 73 licenses and options, and took in $10.6 million in patent revenue. That revenue places U of M solidly among the top 20 university patent revenue earners in the U.S. Thus, the Pfizer facility purchase has the potential to catapult the University of Michigan further up the AUTM’s patent revenue list, perhaps closer to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which earned $47.6 million dollars in revenue from patents and licenses in 2006. 

John F. Ryan is a Property Tax Policy consultant who helped the city of Springfield, MA craft its PILOT program in 2005. Ryan says, “Some organizations recognize the value of services they receive from the local government and are willing to pay their fair share of those costs.”

According to Mr. Ryan, Dr. Mary Sue Coleman’s response to elected officials who recently called for U of M to make payments in lieu of taxes was, well, predictable. Dr. Coleman insists, “the best way for the university to help the city and local economy is to attract new employees who will buy homes in the area and boost business near the Pfizer property.”

Mr. Ryan explains: “For their part, tax exempt entities generally resist calls to begin or increase their contributions to local jurisdictions. They often respond by enumerating the positive beneficial impact they have on the locality, including creating jobs, making local purchases and paying miscellaneous taxes and fees….” 

In Providence, Rhode Island, elected officials aggressively pursued PILOT agreements with four local universities while lobbying for legislation that would have changed the state’s tax-exemption law. Today, Providence collects $3.8 million annually from the University of Rhode Island, Brown, and the Rhode Island School of Design.

In the Midwest, according to a piece in the New York Times, the City Council in Evanston, Illinois “caused a stir when it adopted a tuition tax of $15 a quarter on students at Northwestern University and three other colleges to help pay for city services.” Northwestern officials immediately met with city council members to devise other ways the university might help defray costs associated with the municipal services it receives.

“In many cases…a nonprofit only negotiates a PILOT or some other voluntary contribution after being…faced with the prospect of some other, mandatory tax or payment levied by the local government,” says Mr. Ryan.

Strategies used by elected officials in Cambridge, Providence, Boston and even New Haven, CT, where Yale officials make annual PILOT payments of $2 million per year, demonstrate that Ann Arbor needs elected leaders who can and will craft an aggressive PILOT program. For many years, we’ve been misled into thinking that it simply cannot be done because, according to the fractured logic circulated, the University of Michigan cannot be taxed thanks to its autonomy granted by the state’s Constitution.

A PILOT program is not a tax. It would allow our city government to pursue “good neighbor” payments not just from the University of Michigan, but from other large non-profits in town, as well. For Ann Arbor taxpayers, a PILOT program could very well mean we could see some respite from shouldering the heavy financial burden of having nonprofit neighbors with big plans for everything, in particular, expansion. PILOT payments are voluntary payments, and a PILOT program could bring in $4-$6 million dollars in additional revenue to Ann Arbor. 

A little bit more….

 

 

 

The simple truth is that a PILOT can be negotiated. 

It has been asserted that Ann Arbor has no leverage to negotiate a PILOT. As someone who has spent two decades negotiating agreements with colleges and universities, as well as Fortune 100 companies, I can tell you that’s simply untrue. The truth is that negotiating with the University presents difficulties to certain Council members, and especially the Mayor: they are employees of the University. The Mayor, for instance, is employed as a temporary, part-time lecturer, his wife as a part-time accompanist at the School of Music. Exerting the necessary leverage to win a yearly $4-$6 million dollar payment from the University might very well cost them their part-time, temporary jobs, and the almost $40,000 U of M pays them each year. 

I taught at U of M many years ago after graduate school, and after several years of teaching in Italy. It was a wonderful experience that I have no desire to pursue again, and certainly not while Mayor. Ann Arbor desperately needs a PILOT program, and has needed one for a decade. Our city can have one when the roadblocks to exerting the necessary leverage needed to negotiate one are eliminated.

Popularity: 43% [?]

January 8, 2010

The Politics of A2 Parks: Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club Vows to Fight FITS

Filed under: city council, parks, transportation — Tags: , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 12:37 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

On October 16, 2009, I posted a Weekend Poll: Should Mayor John Give Dame Mary Sue Parkland at Fuller Park For Her Parking Garage? Of the 374 people who’ve voted thus far, 66 percent have said they believe Ann Arbor should not give parkland to the University of Michigan for a parking garage. 

On November 1, 2009 I posted an entry titled “The Politics of A2 Parks: Mayor John and the Dame of North Campus.” In that piece I wrote:

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

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

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

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

My question at the end of that November 1, 2009 entry was a simple one: Will the local Sierra Club and Doug Cowherd play a starring role in this MGM classic, or is all of Ann Arbor watching the opening scenes of Fuller Park Gone With The Wind?

On January 4th, the Executive Committee of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club sent member James D’Amour to the City Council meeting to deliver an opening move in what the Sierra Club affiliate promises will be a fight over gifting the city’s parkland to the University of Michigan for the U.’s planned parking garage near the Medical Center. City officials are trying to spin the “collaboration” with the U on the parking deck as an opportunity to lure transportation investment. I wrote about the Ann Arbor Observer’s coverage of that so-called “leap of faith” here.

Mr. D’Amour sent A2Politico the comments he delivered at the January 4th City Council meeting. The part of the text below that’s bolded was the part of D’Amour’s speech that was truncated because of the 3-minute time limit for speakers. It appears as though the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club is prepared to go to mat over the City Council’s giveaway of parkland:

Good Evening Mayor Hieftje, members of Council, City Administration.

I appear before you tonight as a member of the Executive Committee of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club, representing 3000 members in the area. 

At our December 14, 2009 meeting we passed a resolution in opposition to recent city actions concerning Fuller Park and the proposed Fuller Intermodal Transportation Station.

We are outraged over the notion that the city, very recently after passionately assuring the public that the city’s parkland would never be sold to outside interests without a vote of its citizens, would turn right around and spend hundreds of thousands of its dollars and study a proposed permanent car structure to be built ON CITY PARKLAND to be leased by the university on a long-term basis.

Very clearly this violates the spirit if not the fine print legal definition of the city’s ordinances. It is a breach of trust by the city with its citizens to protect and maintain its parks for present and future generations to enjoy, and it establishes a terrible precedent.

Granted, the current site, a portion of what is currently Fuller Park south of Geddes Road west of the Huron River Bank, had been leased to the university for surface car spaces – with an agreement that lease moneys would go to City Parks and Recreation operations.

The use of public lands designated as parks should be dedicated exclusively for city parks use, not for other purposes.

The use of parkland, for well, parking, with all due respect ladies and gentlemen, is not really a parks and recreation use. Yes, parking exists at park facilities, but parkland for the sake of parking is another matter. Let’s get real here.

We can smile at that but we have a very serious issue. Any disposal of parkland by the city either by sale, reassignment of purpose, or lease must come with the consent of a vote by the citizens, not council.

Furthermore, we are also deeply angered by the city spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultant fees to study building a car structure on city parkland while city administrators threaten closure of existing park facilities on the basis of lack of funds.

We also question if the city made any real efforts with the university in obtaining this arrangement to build a permanent car structure to pursue a potential land swap for such a massive project, if the revenues for parks and recreations operations was even discussed, or whether a perceived convenience by city officials trumped due diligence in pursuing this agreement with the university. Something of this nature really required a more public process than what was apparently conducted here.

It is our parks that make Ann Arbor that special place for everyone, a value that can’t be quantified. It is the inherent responsibility of the city to take care of its parks for future generations.

I should note that the Sierra Club is certainly supportive of many efforts, private and public to encourage non-automobile transit. I also note that this current proposal contains little in the way of concrete plans for non-automobile transit – its focus is on the 900-car parking structure, with most of the parking going to University staff parking and only approximately 200 spaces for a proposed train station.

We DO NOT approve any disposal of existing city parkland, whatever the motivation or goal, either by sale, lease or reassignment without a public vote and will fight any present and future efforts to use Ann Arbor city parks and their assets other than for the purposes for which they were entrusted by citizens to the city to look out for.

On behalf of the Sierra Club I thank you for your time and strongly urge you to reconsider these actions to destroy city park infrastructure.

So, fellow politicos, what do you think? Will The Huron Valley Group be the fly in the ointment and the monkey in the wrench as Mayor Hieftje (whose relationship with the Huron Valley Group is notoriously rocky) and City Council attempt to bypass voters and give the University of Michigan city parkland for their parking garage? Who’s your money on in this fight? Are politico Doug Cowherd and the Executive Committee of the Huron Valley Group prepared to go 15 rounds to stop the FITS project and the Council Majority behind the FITS project? Don’t be shy. Let’s hear your predictions and opinions.

Popularity: 16% [?]

November 1, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity: 19% [?]

October 16, 2009

Weekend Poll: Should Mayor John Give Dame Mary Sue Parkland at Fuller Park For Her Parking Garage?

Filed under: weekend poll — Tags: , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 7:17 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

There is a loophole in the City’s zoning laws (interestingly) that allows our City Council to use parkland for transportation purposes. In a piece I wrote about a joint venture between the city and the University of Michigan to put a parking garage (as a part of the larger FITS project) on the current parking lot at Fuller Park, I raised the question of whether our elected officials should be using parkland for transportation purposes even if zoning law permits such uses.

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

Washtenaw County Clerk Larry Kestenbaum posed an interesting question in a comment on the post linked to above. Does it matter that the University of Michigan and the city are building a parking garage on the site of a parking lot at Fuller Park? 

Thus, the Weekend Poll. We know what the County Clerk thinks about repurposing parkland for transportation. What do you think?

Popularity: 10% [?]

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes