by P.D. Lesko

There are five solid votes on City Council to bring to heel the members of the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors. Those are the votes of Sumi Kailsapathy, Jane Lumm, Sally Hart-Petersen, Stephen Kunselman and Mike Anglin. The resolution needs six votes to pass, however. The DDA Board, comprised of a bushel of appointed Hieftje cronies who control over $20 million dollars in parking fees and money captured through a tax increment financing scheme, is facing a resolution that would remove the mayor from the DDA Board (or require Council’s written permission for the mayor to serve) impose term limits on DDA Board members, and slow down the DDA’s capture of tax money. If passed, the resolution would return $931,000 per year in tax dollars to various jurisdictions including the city’s parks ($53,000), Street Repair Fund ($72,000), Solid Waste Fund ($83,000), as well as money to the Ann Arbor District Library ($52,000) and Washtenaw Community College ($124,000).

Needless to say, the DDA is in panic mode. DDA Board member Sandi Smith hinted at a March meeting that the DDA would be unable to give money in support of affordable housing should the proposed resolution pass.

DDA Board member John Hieftje decried term limits, saying that they were “ineffective” and lead to “inexperience.” At the April 15, 2013 City Council meeting, he proposed an amendment to the ordinance which would have stripped out term limits. Voting in support of the proposal was Ward 5′s new Council member Chuck Warpehoski (pictured right, with wife Nancy Shore). It’s no surprise that Warpehoski voted with Hieftje. On April 2, 2013, Wapehoski slammed term limits as “mandatory inexperience law.” Evidently, neither man has a clue that there are dozens of city boards and commissions with term limits, including the Park Advisory Commission.

What may come as news is that Warpehoski spoke out against term limits and the resolution to assert Council’s authority over the DDA the day after DDA Executive Director Susan Pollay sent an email to City Council members in which she announced that should the proposed resolution pass, the DDA would be forced to cut funding to the getDowntown program by some 85 percent. Chuck Warpehoski’s wife, Nancy Shore, has directed the getDowntown program since 2007, and the DDA Board provides the bulk of the funding for the getDowntown program. A2Politico filed a Freedom of Information Act request for emails sent between January and April 2013 between Council members, DDA Board members and Pollay that referred to the Kunselman/Kailasapathy DDA resolution. Pollay’s email with the threat to castrate the getDowntown program was included in the emails turned over by the DDA.

In fact, in multiple messages to Council members Pollay writes that should the DDA’s capture of tax money be slowed, the organization will “cut funding to the getDowntown program by 85 percent.” Funding to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for its go!pass program would go from $479,000 to $69,642. Such a cut would cripple the getDowntown program which exists, primarily, to provide subsidized go!passes (monthly bus passes) to employees of businesses in the DDA district. Since 2010, the DDA Board members have graciously granted the getDowntown program over $1.473 million dollars in taxpayer money captured by the DDA to subsidize $10 annual bus passes for 4,130 (Susan Pollay March 2013 email to City Council members), 6,500 (AnnArborChronicle.com, March 2013), 5,739 (city of Ann Arbor website: 2008 data) active go!pass users.

In comparison, monthly AATA bus passes for K-12 students are $29 per month, or $348 per year. A monthly bus pass for an adult is $58 per month. A monthly bus pass in San Francisco costs $45 for adults and $10 for students. In Rome, Italy, a monthly bus pass for K-12 students costs 18 Euros ($23).

John Hieftje has never seen a conflict of interest that he couldn’t rationalize. In 2006, Mr. B.A. from Eastern Michigan University was hired to teach graduate school by Paul Courant, then a dean at the Gerald M. Ford School of Public Policy. Courant set Hieftje’s per course pay higher than any other lecturer in his class, topping out at $15,000 per course. If that wasn’t enough, Courant, whose expertise is in library science and Dewey decimals, gave Hieftje a glowing endorsement which Hizzoner plastered all over his web site and literature in which Dr. C. complimented Hieftje’s stellar finance skills.

Ward 5 Council member Chuck Wapehoski hasn’t been hired to teach by the University of Michigan. He is, however, a walking conflict of interest in a much more serious way, and has turned out to be someone over whom it is relatively easy to exert pressure—such as threatening his wife’s job. However, the Hive Mind Collective does not exert subtle pressure, as evidenced by John Hieftje’s bullying public attacks on Ward 3 Council member Stephen Kunselman as of late.

Warpehoski is the Executive Director of a tiny non-profit that advocates for peace, social justice and, as of late, county-wide and regional transportation. The Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice “inspires, educates, and mobilizes people to unite across differences and to act from their shared ethical and spiritual values in pursuit of peace with social and environmental justice,” according to its website.

According to tax returns, in 2010 the organization netted $119,117, or about $40,000 less than the City of Ann Arbor pays its city attorney each year, Stephen Postema. Warpehoski on the other hand, was paid $38,801 in 2010, again according to tax documents. His take home pay would be just north of $26,000 per year. Thus his $15,000 salary as a City Council member, then, bumps up his annual income significanty. Warpehoski’s wife’s employer, the getDowntown Program, is funded by the Boards of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the Downtown Development Authority, appointments to which Warpehoski now votes on in his role as a City Council member. The getDowntown program is also funded by the City of Ann Arbor. Eli Cooper, the Transportation Program Manager for the City of Ann Arbor, sits of Shore’s Advisory Board. Chuck Warpehoski, as a City Council member, votes on recommendations and schemes Cooper brings before City Council. Susan Pollay, the Executive Director of the DDA is one of the getDowntown program’s four Advisory Board members. It was, in fact, Susan Pollay who provided Council members with the information, in March and April 2013 that, should the proposed resolution pass to impose term limits on DDA Board members, and slow the DDA’s capture of tax dollars, that the DDA would be “forced” to cut funding to Shore’s program by 85 percent.

Thus, Pollay’s threat that the DDA will defund the getDowntown program is not subtle pressure; it is a gun aimed directly at Chuck Warpehoski and his wife. The threat is also more evidence that the DDA and its Board members need to be brought sharply to heel. The pervasive lack of discipline and accountability expected from the DDA by City Council over the entire Hieftje era has resulted in a group of appointed officials arrogant enough to threaten a sitting Council member. Then again, Warpehoski laid with the same dogs when he ran for City Council in 2012. He accepted endorsements and large campaign donations from several of the same DDA Board members who, through Susan Pollay, have told Council members that the getDowntown program will be gutted should term limits be imposed and the TIF capture slowed. Did Warpehoski’s wife know he was playing with fire in accepting money and endorsements from the people who fund her job and feed their family? Nancy Shore was her husband’s campaign treasurer and signed the campaign finance forms.

The Hive Mind Collective’s choice, funding, and endorsement of Chuck Warpehoski was no accident. They choose candidates whom they expect to control. The question of whether Warpehoski is the independent-minded representative he promised to be when he ran was answered when he voted in favor of stripping term-limits from the Kunselman/Kailasapathy DDA resolution on April 15th. His conflict of interest is voting on anything to do with the AATA or DDA is immense in light of how his wife’s job is funded, and that he voted on the DDA resolution after Pollay’s direct threat speaks volumes.

In November 2012, Wapehoski’s opponent, Vivienne Armentrout, wrote this to response to a piece posted to AnnArbor.com: “Mr. Warpehoski will face a number of challenges in reconciling his role as an advocate for causes with his role as a representative. He is a thoughtful person who places a high value on ethics, and I wish him well as he threads his way through this and other such issues.”

Chuck’s going to need more than luck on May 6th.

by P.D. Lesko

At the moment, Ann Arbor City Council members are trying to assert their Charter-mandated authority over the Board of the Downtown Development Authority like a parent trying to discipline a hopelessly out-of-control toddler in the midst of an epic temper tantrum. John Hieftje stars in this drama as the ineffectual parent, the one who stands by and undermines all efforts to impose discipline—the parent at whom people in grocery stores stare, shake their heads and roll their eyes. Members of City Council want term limits for DDA Board members—one particularly troublesome member was appointed when Barbara Bush was First Lady—and want to slow down the DDA’s capture of tax dollars.

This effort to clean up the DDA Board  comes on the heels of the “retirement” of two members of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board of Directors. Local politicos argue that David Nacht, who does not live in Ann Arbor, had no business serving on the Board of AATA and making decisions about the disposition of millage dollars. Likewise, Jesse Bernstein, so say disgruntled members of the now defunct Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce, had no business cross-dressing as the AATA’s “finance” guru during the group’s failed efforts to sell a $500 million dollar county-wide transit boondoggle to residents. Under Bernstein, the Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce lost revenues, members, and ultimately after Bernstein left his job there, was forced to merge with the Ypsilanti Chamber of Commerce.

At his last meeting, David Nacht was quoted by AnnArborChronicle.com as saying “I encourage all my fellow citizens to serve on a board.” The comment is somewhat pretentious coming from the township resident who soaked up a decade on the AATA Board. In addition, while Nacht’s encouragement of his “fellow citizens” in general may appear laudatory, it’s absurd in the face of John Hieftje’s determination to choose candidates for the city’s most powerful boards and commissions from among a gene pool the size of a thimble, primarily from among his political donors and cronies (Nacht included). Nacht’s “fellow citizens” have a snow ball’s chance in hell of being appointed to the AATA Board based on Hieftje’s track record of making such appointments.

However, the DDA Board battle, along with the “retirements” of Nacht and Bernstein, suggest John Hieftje’s ability to stack the city’s boards and commissions could be at an end thanks to a group of citizens and City Council members concerned with transparency and fiscal accountability in local government. These Council members include Ward 1 Council member Sumi Kailasapathy, Ward 2 Council members Jane Lumm and Sally Hart Petersen, Ward 3 Council member Stephen Kunselman and Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin. All are inclined to question board appointments, and all have spoken in favor of making board and commission appointments more prudently. Several favor term limits on board and commission appointments, and several have concerns about city contracts that have been awarded to Hieftje’s board and commission appointees and their employers, including Environmental Commission member David Stead, whose company is up to its neck in city contracts awarded during the move to single-stream recycling.

Hieftje’s efforts to put long-time Planning Commission member Eric Mahler on the AATA Board to replace Nacht may prove to the a turning point in the battle against rampant and unchecked cronyism in local government.

In addition to appointing political donors to boards and commissions, Hieftje has repeatedly appointed to important boards and commissions as “citizen” members City Council members whose constituents have booted them from office. Leigh Greden was tossed from office in 2009 after the Ann Arbor News revealed Greden was playing on Facebook and sending rude and unprofessional emails during open City Council meetings. Hieftje subsequently appointed Greden to the city’s Housing Commission. In 2012, Ward 2 voters chose to vote Tony Derezinski out of office. Shortly thereafter, Hieftje appointed Derezinski to the the city’s Planning Commission. Likewise, Ward 2 voters tossed Stephen Rapundalo from office, and Hieftje appointed Rapundalo as a “citizen” member of the LDFA—a board on which Rapundalo sat as a Council member. The LDFA was used to funnel tax dollars to Ann Arbor SPARK.

Running for City Council and losing also has its perks. After Hive Mind candidate Ingrid Ault challenged Ward 3 Council member Stephen Kunselman in 2011, Hieftje appointed Ault to the Park Advisory Commission. Needless to say, a decade of fostering group think and appointing political yes men (and women) to boards and commissions has resulted in some spectacularly expensive mistakes and poor stewardship of the city’s resources, such as a Park Advisory Commission member who voted in support of developing parkland and using it for parking.

In an effort to better understand why a wider variety of the city’s residents are not participating in boards and commissions, A2Politico filed a FOIA seeking all of the applications submitted for the openings on city boards and commissions over the past four months. It’s not clear whether Mahler filled out an application to sit on the AATA Board, or whether he needed to do so in order to be considered for the opening.

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board member David Nacht’s departure marks not only the end of a decade of public service, but also marks a turning point. John Hieftje appointed Nacht to the Board for a 10 year term. Over the course of those ten years there has been sharp criticism leveled that AATA’s Board members have neglected bettering service within the city of Ann Arbor. Many of those criticisms came from former AATA Treasurer Ted Annis. Annis, in fact, is still an outspoken critic of AATA’s finances (Annis contends AATA is run inefficiently) and the bus provider’s inability to get a rider from one side of the city to the other in less than one hour.

That AATA Board members David Nacht and Jesse Bernstein are “retiring,” in the light of the county-wide transit debacle that cost taxpayers millions, is great news. That Hieftje wants to replace Nacht with Eric Mahler should come as no surprise. Mahler, it could be argued, has done enough for Ann Arbor having played his part in crafting the seriously flawed A2D2 Design Guidelines/Zoning against which the public is now railing. At the end of March 2013, in response to public backlash aimed at a parcel which Mahler (among others) voted to zone D1 (for dense development), City Council decided to conduct a review of the D1 zoning guidelines. Mahler and the Planning Commission, in essence, were asked to review their own work—work which they believed had been done correctly in the first place.

There are about 400 Ann Arbor citizens who serve on boards and commissions, according to city records. About one-fifth of those citizens serve on more than one board or commission. Below, you’ll find a list of several of Ann Arbor’s busiest citizens, each of whom have been appointed to serve on multiple city boards and commissions:

Bonnie Bona: City Panning Commission, Downtown Zoning Steering Committee, Ad Hoc, North Huron Vision Task Force, Street Art Fairs, Mayor’s Committee on

Roger Hewitt: Community Security & Public Space Task Force, Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Zoning Steering Committee, Ad Hoc, Local Officers’ Compensation Commission, Local Officers’ Compensation Commission

Anthony Ramirez: Building Authority, Cable Communications Commission, Housing and Human Services Advisory Board

Kirk Westphal: City Panning Commission, Design Guidelines Taskforce, Environmental Commission (Planning Commission Rep.)

Westphal, of course, has recently stepped up to challenge Ward 2 Council member Jane Lumm, who recently called out Hieftje for launching personal attacks and bullying those who, as Lumm put it, “may occasionally” disgaree with him. The question, of course, is whether there are six votes on Council to break John Hieftje of his nasty habit of appointing his cronies to the city’s most powerful boards and commissions. If there were six votes to put Mahler out to pasture, it would force Hieftje to appoint one of David Nacht’s “fellow citizens” to the AATA Board. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

by P.D. Lesko

“Hieftje gives out seats on city boards and commissions at parties, like they were candy,” says a political insider. John Hieftje’s propensity to populate the city’s boards and commissions with yes men (and women) and unqualified political cronies has long irked political insiders and haunted city residents, whose input and feedback Hieftje’s cronies often blatantly ignore. Hieftje’s short-sightedness is now coming back to bite him in the political posterior. Most recently, the Board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) Board, comprised of political cronies, several of whom don’t live in Ann Arbor, and most of whom never regularly take the bus, wasted millions on a spectacularly embarrassing failed bid to hijack AATA millage money to pay for buses to run to out-county communities, and commuter rail between Howell and Ann Arbor. Hieftje was forced to humiliate himself and sponsor a resolution for the city of Ann Arbor to withdraw from his own transportation scheme after virtually all of the county’s elected leaders failed to sign on.

The comments on AnnArbor.com that call for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to be “dissolved,” “disbanded,” “fired” and “junked,” are strident and virtually non-stop. The DDA’s unelected Board members are treated to equally pointed criticisms by readers of the news site. Joan Lowenstein, a libel lawyer and  former City Council member, was appointed by Hizzoner to the DDA Board after she lost a bid to sit on the 15th District Court. Lowenstein is often mocked by AnnArbor.com readers as politically arrogant. Then again, Lowenstein has mocked and insulted Ann Arbor residents and voters in videos, at open meetings, as well as in print.

The DDA, as well as several of the organization’s Board members (including John Hieftje and Lowenstein) backed the failed Ann Arbor District Library millage proposal.  Ellie Serras, who headed the “Our New Downtown Library” committee told a local news blog after the millage went down in flames, “I think there were implications that the library was involved with the city and the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) in some way…and the community responded.” The support of the DDA and endorsement of DDA Board members of the library millage proposal was a serious negative in the eyes of “the community.”  Ouch. With a couple of exceptions, the DDA Board members are routinely criticized as arrogant, out-of-touch cronies who thumb their noses at the public through profligate spending of tax dollars. The following comments come from recent stories about the DDA on AnnArbor.com:

• I can’t recall electing any of the members of the DDA. How in the world can the council even consider giving them this kind of power? It’s bad enough that they control the money from PUBLIC parking.
• These are the same groups of people that want a conference center with no actual business proposal on how to pay without city funding/backing.
• Abolish the DDA. We don’t need an unelected shadow government.
• ….I thought the DDAs were city development arms for re-energizing downtowns and were never to be revenue collectors nor service providers. Seems Ann Arbor’s DDA has gotten off its leash and now runs its own little self-financed business club – often at “human value” expense and minority position against voters. The Library lot convention center, the Library, new vamprise funding/discounts, AATA programs including one ugly and unnecessary station, Too much!

As a result of the almost constant public pounding, perhaps, the DDA Board members look for ways to make it appear as though they are competently managing the city’s 7,145 parking spaces and the public’s $17 million in parking revenues. It’s a losing battle. At the most recent DDA Board meeting, Board member Roger Hewitt (a restauranteur) told the public “…not to evaluate whether an individual structure is making money but rather whether the parking system as a whole is working. And the net annual income is nearly $800 per space ($784).” He said it as if bringing in $784 in annual revenue per parking space should be something to write home to mother about.

As it turns out, bringing in $784 in annual revenue per parking space is something to write about, because it’s 98 percent below the national per parking space average, according to the most recent data compiled by the National Parking Association. The National Parking Association represents 2,300 members, 715 Companies and organizations serving the corporate and small business owners/operators of parking operations, as well as institutional, government and educational entities.

The AnnArborChronicle.com ”chronicled” the December meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority where Hewitt shared that information. Once again DDA officials took the opportunity to pass off poor performance as an achievement worth noting, and did so unchallenged. It is also worth noting that the DDA is a regular advertiser on AnnArborChronicle.com. Without comparing Hewitt’s (and the DDA’s) annual income per space to the annual income per space generated by other similarly-sized parking systems, Hewitt’s statement is little more than a useless factoid. When DDA’s revenues and expenses are compared to national averages, it becomes clear that the DDA Board overseeing an organization is delivering results well below national averages where revenues are concerned, and well above national averages where overhead, debt load and project costs are concerned.

Perhaps calls to dissolve the DDA aren’t so off base, after all.

After reading Hewitt’s boast, A2Politico contacted the National Parking Association. The group puts out an annual report titled Parking in America. It includes data from 47 states, 91 cities in the U.S. and Canada. Participants own or operate more than 28,000 parking facilities with more than 10.7 million parking spaces.

Here are some key findings:

• Mean maximum 12-hour daily rates charged in the operator’s facilities cost $13.19 in 2012.

A2P Notes: In Ann Arbor’s attended lots, it costs $17 to park from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

• Monthly permits in Ann Arbor garages cost $140-$195  per month.

A2P Notes: According to the 2012 Collier’s Parking Survey, Ann Arbor monthly parking permits cost more than those in much larger cities such as Portland, San Diego, Denver and Minneapolis. Monthly parking permits in Atlanta, Georgia and Columbus, Ohio cost between $75 and $125 in 2012.

• The average on-street metered parking for one hour in the city/metro area is an average of $1.35 cents per hour.

A2P Notes: Over the past 24 months, the DDA and City Council have doubled the rate of hourly metered parking from $.75 cents to $1.50 per hour.

• The average net revenue per parking space is $1,510.

The DDA’s abysmally low revenue per space is primarily due to the organization’s long-term build up of structural debt. The DDA’s fund balance is down to $4 million, and if the organization’s finances dip into the red, state law would require the DDA to be disbanded, or for the city’s taxpayers to raise revenues sufficient to bail out the organization. The DDA’s per parking spot operating expenses are also significantly higher than the national average, according to the NPA officials.

Ann Arbor’s current Hieftje-appointed DDA Board cronies (including a woman appointed when Barbara Bush was First Lady, an architect, two bar owners, a libel lawyer, a theater director and the owner of a dry cleaning shop) oversee a parking system that takes in 98 percent less net revenue per parking spot managed than other similarly-sized parking systems in the United States surveyed by the NPA.

Ward 3 Council member Stephen Kunselman has been taking political swipes at the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority Board and its members (including John Hieftje) for almost two years. Kunselman has been quoted in the media as saying he has “lost confidence” in the DDA’s Board, and that the DDA is a “shadow government.” When Kunselman last ran for re-election in 2011, at a candidate debate sponsored by the local chapter of the League of Women Voters, Kunselman suggested that John Hieftje’s administration has a serious problem with cronyism.

Prior to 2001, the city’s parking system employed a unionized workforce. Shortly after John Hieftje took office, he pushed to have the DDA control parking. In turn the unelected DDA Board members broke the union, and tossed out the unionized workers. Republic Parking was hired, and under the terms of its current contract is paid a $150,000 management fee, plus the $50,000 “performance-based” fee which DDA Board members have repeatedly referred to as a “tip”—a 30 percent tip, paid for with taxpayer funds. The Ann Arbor DDA Board’s “tips” paid to Republic Parking by the DDA Board members are split among Republic Parking executives. Republic executives take in “tips” from other city’s parking systems they manage, as well.

In 2009, when the DDA Board members were criticized in the Ann Arbor News for giving Republic Parking executives a $45,000 tip, then DDA Chair Roger Hewitt characterized the “tip” as giving the DDA some “clout.” Hardly. In a February 2001 study published by Cornell University researchers who studied tipping, the researchers discovered “… that people are poor at identifying the causes of their own actions. (O)ne should regard with skepticism, then, consumer reports that they tip as a reward for good service.” The Cornell researchers conclude that “the tipping- service relationship can only be described as weak.” Thus, people will give, say, a 20 percent tip regardless of service, and a large tip will have little impact on the overall quality of the service provided. Like Wall Street executives who received “tips” even when their “service” resulted a national economic collapse, there is typically little correlation between tips and better-than-average job performance. Republic Parking Systems, Inc. is one of the largest privately held parking management services companies in the country, with revenues of $360 million a year and about 2,600 employees.

The company’s parking attendants average $8-$12 per hour, plus benefits. By law, Republic Parking employees in Ann Arbor must earn an hourly rate at least equal to the living wage ordinance requirement, $12.17 per hour. Unionized parking lot attendants at the University of Michigan earn $31,824 per year, or $16.57 per hour before taxes, plus benefits. In 2008, the Charleston, South Carolina City Council members slammed Republic Parking for paying its employees “slave wages,” in some cases as low as $5.85 per hour. The Council members voted to allocate $300,000 to raise the wages of the Republic Parking workers, and when the city’s contract with Republic Parking was next approved those council members instructed Republic to raise the pay of its lowest paid workers by $1.15 per hour.

In Western Washington, where Republic Parking is contracted to handle parking for the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane and Bellevue, its rating with the Better Business Bureau is a D+, with complaints outstanding and unresolved. The BBB in that state has identified “a pattern of complaints from consumers alleging customer service and credit or billing issues. Consumers allege they pay, but later receive a ticket in the mail stating they have not paid for service, and late fees are incurred.” The new five-year contract between the DDA and Republic Parking calls for Republic to install new automated payment equipment in some of the city’s parking structures. The new equipment will allow motorists to check themselves out and will allow the use of credit cards for payment. The BBB in Western Washington has warned drivers away from Republic Parking and its automated payment equipment.

In July 2012, DDA officials borrowed $1.3 million from Republic Parking officials at 6 percent interest to fund the installation of new automated pay equipment in the city’s parking garages. This is the same kind of equipment that has led to consumer complaints against Republic Parking in Washington State and elsewhere. In 2009, Republic Parking  accidentally “reprocessed” the credit cards of Seattle customers who’d used the company’s automated pay equipment. Republic Parking blamed a computer glitch for the overcharging error, but the 12,000 reprocessed transactions topped $100,000, and the company sent out no warnings to consumers that their cards may have been “fraudulently charged,” complained one Seattle resident to a local news station. One question that surfaced during that investigation was why Republic Parking was storing the credit card information of short-term parking customers.

In Denver, Colorado, Republic Parking customers who’d had problems with the automated parking machines took to Yelp.com to voice their complaints. Republic Parking has a 1 star (out of 5) on Yelp.com Denver. One customer writes:

Stay away from these parking lots – their machines are always broken so you can’t pay for parking – then they never issue a ticket.  Their MO is to send you a letter two months later from some cheesy so called Lawyer (Byron somebody) totaling $55. If you try and dispute it they just don’t respond – even if you call or send written correspondence. I had to search on their website to find someone to talk to about the issue.  They asked me what time I called to report the problem.  Why is it my responsibility to report their issue when most of the time the machines are broken?  One time I even got my credit card stuck and had to stand there while my friend went and bought tweezers to get it out.  Seems to me like I’m doing a lot of work to pay them for a crappy service.

They don’t maintain their machines and then they are impossible to get anything resolved.

Terrible company.

It’s possible Republic Parking and the DDA will work together to avoid these pitfalls. Then again, hell could freeze over, pigs could fly, and The DDA’s $784 in revenue per parking space could be “chronicled” so that it appears as though John Hieftje and his DDA cronies are doing a fantastic job running the city’s parking system on behalf of taxpayers footing the bills.

The Ann Arbor chapter of the League of Women Voters sponsors candidate debates each election cycle for City Council races. On October 5, 2011, the League gave Third Ward Democrat Stephen Kunselman the chance to strut his political stuff against Republican opponent David Parker. Parker and Kunselman tackled questions about the proposed street millage renewal, the Fuller Road parking garage project, and the Percent for Art Program. However, it was Kunselman’s opening statement that should give pause. Kunselman took the Downtown Development Authority to the cleaners. The DDA is a board of individuals who control an approximately $20,000,000 annual budget generated by tax revenues captured from downtown businesses, as well as parking revenues generated by publicly-owned parking garages and lots.

In his opening statement, Kunselman (left) called the DDA a hotbed of “political cronyism.” In contrast, Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo, in his debate against former Second Ward Council member Jane Lumm, who is trying to retake the seat she last held in the late-90s, had nothing but praise for the members of the DDA Board.

This is not Kunselman’s first criticism of the DDA. Kunselman has also referred to the Board the DDA as a “shadow government,” seeking to take control of political decisions which have typically been made by elected officials on City Council, such as whether parking rates should be raised or not. In 2010, former DDA Chair Joan Lowenstein pushed to have City Council give up its responsibility to set parking rates. Lowenstein was quoted in the Press as saying:

All of you [City Council members] here have to run for office every couple of years. There is no reason why any of you should have to run for office on the question of whether parking is $1.50 an hour or $1.75 an hour. You are elected to make broad policy decisions and have a broad policy agenda, and what we’re suggesting here is that we [the DDA Board] take over what are some of the managerial parts of this whole process so that we can, in effect, shield you from having to do that.”

The idea of “shielding” elected officials didn’t sit well with some. Barbara C. Kramer posted a comment in response to the piece in which Lowenstein was quoted. Kramer says, “While understanding the Mayor’s desire that council members not be elected or not elected on one issue, one hopes the voters have more depth in their decision making. I believe we elect officials to make tough decisions based on the will of their constituents. The DDA does a fine job, but its members are not elected and should not have final say.”

Vivienne Armentrout, a former Washtenaw County Commissioner, writes in response, “Council should not be giving up their powers of decision on this or any other subject to an unelected body. What former CM Lowenstein is saying is that Council should be protected from any consequence of their actions. But it also will handicap them from setting the direction of our city. I don’t agree that Council is only a broad policy-setting body. Our Council and Mayor have traditionally been partners (with the administration) in management of matters that affect our citizens. I would hate to see current or future councilmembers prohibited from carrying out this role.”

Decisions such as this one to allow the DDA Board members to decide public policy—decisions made by people who are not elected officials, but rather are appointed by Mayor John Hieftje—has resulted in Kunselman’s vocal criticisms. The recent League of Women Voters debate, however, was the first time Steve Kunselman alleged that the DDA Board is populated by John Hieftje’s political cronies. It was also the first time Kunselman vowed to “keep on going after” the DDA.

Hieftje is notoriously touchy about such criticisms. In 2010, while running for re-election, after a debate at which he was criticized for cronyism and his administration called “corrupt,” he left  enraged. He stopped at the homes of several supporters and yanked out his yard signs. He later told AnnArbor.com that he didn’t want his yard signs next to those of the Council candidate who had made the allegations. Hieftje’s actions may have surprised some, but certainly not those who are long-time political observers. He was, in fact, chided for being thin-skinned in response to criticism and retaliatory in the face of political disagreements in a 2004 editorial in the Ann Arbor News. The paper editorialized:

“Hieftje’s largest failure is not one of vision, but leadership. Few are willing to publicly criticize Hieftje because they expect quick retaliation and there is good reason for that conclusion. He sprints to accept praise. His reaction to disagreement is shrill. Hieftje could not identify one thing he would do differently in his current term as mayor. He was, however, ready to head down a path of identifying the missteps of city employees until he was reminded that the question pertained to his own actions.”

Stephen Kunselman has felt the wrath of Hieftje. Kunselman was knocked off of Council in 2009 by Christopher Taylor, recruited, some say, at the behest of Hieftje, who was irritated that Kunselman had consistently refused to fall into step and vote reliably with Hieftje and the so-called Council Majority on a variety of issues. During the Kunselman-Taylor race, someone at City Hall leaked confidential information to the Ann Arbor News about a union grievance filed by AFSCME officials against Kunselman. The paper used the grievance to write a scathing attack on Kunselman in its endorsement of Christopher Taylor. Kunselman lost in 2008, but came back in 2009, and knocked off former Third Ward Council member Leigh Greden.

This year, DDA member Joan Lowenstein very openly backed Ingrid Ault, one of Kunselman’s two opponents in the August Democratic primary. Lowenstein was not alone. Ault was backed by First Ward Council member Sandi Smith, as well. Smith sits on the Board of the DDA. A few weeks after Kunselman handily beat Ault, he cast the lone dissenting vote in Council’s reappointment of Joan Lowenstein to the Board of the DDA. After Hieftje heaped praise on Lowenstein in the midst of asking Council to approve her appointment, Kunselman voted against the re-appointment without comment.

Stephen Kunselman’s allegations concerning Hieftje’s penchant for stacking city Boards and Commissions with his political yes men and political cronies are not without merit. The mayor’s campaign finance forms reveal a pattern that comes very close to pay-to-play. For instance, it’s not uncommon to look back to an election prior to an individual’s Board or Commission appointment, and find a large donation was made to Hieftje’s campaign. From the members of DDA Board alone, Hieftje raised almost 15 percent of the money he needed to run his 2010 re-election campaign.

As for Republican David Parker, his performance at the League debate was lackluster. He was uniformed about the workings of city government, as well as on the major policy issues that will face City Council after the November election. At one point Mr. Parker admitted that he had not done his “research.” At another point, when answering a question about the long-time debate over whether Ann Arbor city government should create a Greenway through the city, Parker appeared clueless.

It’s clear Steve Kunselman is the better prepared and more experienced of the two candidates. It’s also clear that, if re-elected, Kunselman will intensify his efforts to reign in the DDA Board and its spending. It’s a message that resonates with voters angered at having to pay big city parking rates. It’s a message that resonates with downtown merchants who believe extending parking enforcement hours to increase DDA revenues to pay for projects such as the new police-court building, will hurt their businesses.

“I think Steve Kunselman is right on with his criticisms of the DDA Board. Those people don’t represent the downtown. They don’t care about the vitality of downtown. They care about sitting on some board. They’re on a power trip and it’s hurting the city,” fumed a downtown shop owner who has had a store on Main Street for many years.

The AnnArborChronicle.com has been tweaking its brand, as of late. The site, described by Publisher Mary Morgan as a chronicler of local government, has been doing more than just repeating what happened at meetings. The site has been posting original reporting (including a recent tip that former Second Ward Council member Jane Lumm pulled nominating petitions to run against local DINO Stephen Rapundalo), and throwing in a bit of gossip, opinion and rumor, as well.

In its latest coverage of the August 4, 2011 City Council meeting, editor David Askins (who is married to Morgan) chronicled Third Ward Council member Stephen Kunselman’s latest dance-and-jab in the general direction of the Downtown Development Authority. Using information provided to him by concerned citizens, he pointed out that the DDA’s most recent financial audit tagged the entity for being on the wrong side of state law. Evidently, Joan Lowenstein, a self-proclaimed believer in the Think Method of policing (whereby citizens are bamboozled into thinking they are safe when there are often times fewer police patrolling the city than it takes to field one side of a basketball game), is not, perhaps, a strict believer in fund balances that keep the DDA on the financial straight and narrow as dictated by state law.

The schenanigans Kunselman was referring to were uncovered by DDA’s most recent audit, and caught by citizens who took the time to read the audit, and who then shared the information with Council members who obviously had not read the audit, or understood the implications of the DDA’s proprosed budget that put one of its fund balances into the red as a result of making bond payments for the latest underground parking garage project.

If this sounds overly complicated, it’s not. The result is that taxpayers will be footing a bill Hieftje, DDA Board members and others promised taxpayers they would never have to foot.

In the course of chronicling Kunselman’s comments, Askins writes:

By way of background, the deficits had been for a fund within the DDA’s budget (the parking fund), but taken in aggregate, the DDA’s budget was not in deficit. However, the required adjustment to the accounting, to show positive balances for all the funds, meant that the accounting showed clearly that TIF tax capture would be used to help pay for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage. That meant that mayor John Hieftje’s claim during his 2010 primary election campaign – that parking revenues, not tax money, would be used pay for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage – was not accurate.

That last sentence is not Stephen Kunselman talking. That is David Askins going the extra mile to ever-so-gently point out that John Hieftje told a whopper when running for re-election in 2010. In fact, Hieftje told the same whopper over, and over, and over: the Fifth Avenue parking garage will not impact the city’s budget, because it will be paid for with parking revenues, not tax dollars. Bzzzzzzt. Another Whopper  from John. Care to try for Double Jeopardy? How about doubled parking rates and extended enforcement hours to pay for the behind schedule, sink-hole plagued parking garage? Higher rates and longer enforcement hours are coming soon to a parking kiosk near you courtesy of a puppet DDA Board whose members are appointed by Hieftje. All but one or two (Newcombe Clark and Jennifer Santi Hall come to mind) have found it impossible to tell Hieftje he can’t use DDA parking revenues and tax dollars for his pie-in-the-sky building spree, such as the over-budget city hall, and the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage).

As interesting as it is to read Askins’s connect-the-dots-lightbulb-goes-on moment, I just can’t help but find the move a bit cheeky. Now, those of you who have been reading A2Politico for any length of time know A2Politico appreciates cheeky writing and observations. Here’s the cheek: While covering the same 2010 primary elections, David Askins repeated (i.e. “chronicled”) Hieftje’s whopper.

Is AnnArborChronicle.com starting to get tired of simply being a stenographer for politicos like Hieftje who use the willing site to spread information that is not, well, “accurate?” Along with AnnArbor.com, AnnArborChronicle.com is a dream come true for politicos who like to tell whoppers, such as these told during the 2010 primary elections:

“Work on the Stadium Bridge is scheduled to begin no later than March 2011″ (Fourth Ward Council member Margie Teall).

“Council has instructed city staff to commence work on the $23 million project no later than next spring.” (Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke).

If AnnArborChronicle.com is prepared to point this out: “That meant that mayor John Hieftje’s claim during his 2010 primary election campaign – that parking revenues, not tax money, would be used pay for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage – was not accurate,” we must also wonder if the site’s editor and publisher are prepared to take responsibility for the site’s role in aiding Hieftje, Teall, Hohnke and Smith in their concerted efforts to simply spew made-up stories as well as answers to questions that were, well, “not accurate” during the 2010 election season and beyond.

It’s about time AnnArborchronicle.com applied some of the brain power that fuels the site, and attention to detail that makes it a worthwhile resource, on connecting the dots instead of allowing the city’s local politicos continue to claim there are no dots to connect. It’s about time John Hieftje and his political allies on Council faced the consequences of their penchant for telling half-truths and outright whoppers whenever the mood strikes them, or when they want to spend obscene amounts of money on building projects the city clearly can’t afford.