Comments on: Demolition Moratorium for Two-Block Area

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:16:21 +0000

Here's a money (and climate)-saving option to consider: link.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:13:16 +0000

Want to save a few bucks?

Restructure the Planning and Development Services department, cut Trakit and restore BS&A software. Cut the upper management. These operations can be managed by the staff themselves. The Fraser inspired and Terry Laycock managed reorganization has been a disaster. Ask anyone (other than management cheerleaders) and you’ll find that the department is in melt down.

Million dollar consultant Laycock is being rehired to “reorganize” the Low and subsidized Housing department in city hall. At what cost?

By: Stew Nelson

Stew Nelson — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:03:25 +0000

What is serious is the budget deficit! I wish that Crawford et al could have envisioned this “new reality” when they still could have done something about it. What has changed so much from the balanced budget they presented only a few months ago! The handwriting has been on the wall for over two years and the council majority chose to ignore it.

By: tgwhitaker

tgwhitaker — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:02:12 +0000

Mission accomplished.

By: Matt Hampel

Matt Hampel — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:43:07 +0000

I can no longer tell what is serious and what is sarcasm.

By: Gary Salton

Gary Salton — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:51:08 +0000

(Re:) GOOD GRIEF! No cell phone chats in cars. What will people do with all of that time? Maybe thinking will make a comeback.

By: suswhit

suswhit — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:22:14 +0000

Re:[4] I completely agree and think you are very wise. I would like to add a friendly amendment to the proposal to also exempt people with a car who have plans “in the pipeline” for a cell phone and also people with cell phones who have plans “in the pipeline” for a car.
Taxpayers bought their cellphones under one set of rules and it is dangerous to deviate from the predictability of the regulatory process when someone goes down a path in good faith. There are such things as property rights, you know. I’d like to caution that this ban on cellphones would send a very chilling message to the broader community of cell phone service providers as well as manufacturers that Ann Arbor is unfriendly to communication.

But also, I just heard of this proposal and haven’t had time to read my packet yet, so I would like to move to postpone this issue until I no longer need to use my cell phone in the car. Will anyone second that?

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:18:00 +0000

Re: [4] and the cell phone ordinance that could appear on the next council meeting’s agenda.

I followed up with Derezinski by email, asking: “Do you know if the language in the cell-phone ordinance will be interpreted to include a prohibition against cell-phones while bicycling?

Have you given any thought to including explicit language that mentions bicycles — as opposed to letting it rest on the interpretation of the word ‘vehicle,’ for example?”

He indicated in his response that he’d ask city legal staff to review with respect to that issue.

By: Karen Sidney

Karen Sidney — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:06:32 +0000

The council majority is allowing the city to be run for the benefit of top management. Past practice has been to give management (non union employees)whatever the unions get. It should come as no surprise that management is not motivated to push for increases in the age when retiree health care kicks in. Who wouldn’t like to have the city pay for family health coverage starting at age 50 or 55, depending on years of service? City taxpayers pay the tab for retiree health care for former city managers who are now working for EMU and the state of Michigan.

Council was told of the problem in 2005 (Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee). They could have made substantial changes to the benefit package for the 20% of permanent city employees who are non union, such as raising the eligibility age for retiree health care or a 401k plan for new hires. Instead they chose to ask management staff to pay a small amount toward their health care premiums. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed.

The debt for retiree health care now approaches $200 million dollars. The city has fewer permanent employees but a lot more retirees than before the first early retirement program back in 2001. The bill for the early retirements is now coming due and that’s a big reason why the city does not have enough money to pay the bills. Instead of benefit changes that would bring city benefits in line with employers like the U of M, the solution is to convince voters we need an income tax.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:56:18 +0000

This is a dangerous changing of the rules midstream. I think Council should postpone discussion of this “nucular option” for at least 4-6 weeks. If not, they should exempt citizens who already own cell phones and cars.