Again, I have learned enough, from a wide enough range of people, to realize that I cannot claim to be smarter than anyone else. I am, however, smart enough to have figured out that I generally learn more when my mouth is closed.

John Floyd
Republican for Council
5th Ward

I would love to see higher turnouts and contested elections. Self-government does not happen by letting others make your choices for you.

It strikes me that “Democracy” is about representing your constituents, rather than telling them that they don’t know what’s best for themselves, and to sit down and be quiet while the really smart people make all their decisions for them. An official who thinks he/she has information or an insight that his/her constituents lack has an obligation to share that knowledge or insight with the voters.

It’s great news that Fuller Park Garage is not a done deal, but I fear that may be more about federal funding than about, say, what citizens want – we would need a referendum to establish that.

It’s not clear what meaning it has to admonish people to “vote the bums out”, when only one council seat will be contested in November. Even in the primary, people who want to vote for, say, Rick Snyder, have no opportunity to vote for council at all (unless they live in the 5th Ward, where they can vote for me). Primary elections are not where we are supposed to choose our officials. Held when many folks are away, and the rest are not thinking about politics, August turnout is often around 10%. It’s not obvious that a primary victory confers any particular mandate from the populace.

We agree that “Yelling at our officials in meetings” is not civil society at its best. However, when “our” officials seem unable to hear, the temptation to speak more loudly is understandable.

While I myself have chosen to always write under my own name, pen names have a long and honored place in American political writing: no less a figure than Alexander Hamilton did his most famous writing (The Federalist) under the pen name “Publius”. To me, personal remarks are inappropriate whether under any name, but writing about conduct in office is the reason the 1st amendment exists.

Welcome to the race, see you on the hustings.

I agree with the fact that you’re touching on the root of this (i.e. voter turn out is low and therein lies the rub about our fair Gotham) but saying that we have the process and democracy we deserve is similar to Mr. Hohnke claiming ignorance on the particulars of a contract with the U. True our not, it’s political expediency, and its unfortunate, whether caused by our collective apathy or by the deficiency of our leadership.

Yes, in a perfect world everyone would know what’s best for themselves, agree on the best approach to get it, and collectively work together to achieve it. But romantic comedies would be pretty darn boring if that was the case and there probably wouldn’t be any need for elected and/or appointed leadership anymore. You elect someone to lead on the strength of his or her convictions, the expertise and experiences they bring to the table, their skills and abilities to listen, to learn, and their flexibly in applying their (hopefully) ever-expanding knowledge. That to me is democracy at its best. Yelling at our officials in meetings or snipping at them anonymously in blogs isn’t the way to get what we want. Yes they’re our employees, but that doesn’t mean we get to sweat-shop them. We hire them, put trust and faith in them to do what they say they will, and when they don’t (or we get a better
option), we let them go. So I agree with Mr. Hohnke on that one.

Fuller is far from a done deal, and we voters have an opportunity to replace half the council and the Mayor in under 2 weeks if we’re that freaked out about what they’re doing.

Lord knows I don’t agree with Mr. Hohnke on a lot, and I’m guessing I don’t agree with you in quite a few areas either. Which will make this interesting for at least us thru November. But bottom line, if Mr. Hohnke pulls off a win in 9 days, our fellow 5th Ward Voters will have the difficult task of finding true differences between 3 well-educated, relatively affluent white men who all believe they’re smarter than one another…that to me doesn’t seem like much of a choice at all. But I will give credit where credit is due (and take what little I can myself). 5th Warders at least are engaged more than most, and come November, they at least have a choice…even if it simply comes down to a preference on how we part our hair. For that, we owe you continued gratitude for your continued campaigning. It’s a mark of leadership in my book.

As for what my team plans on spending. We will spend what we are fortunate to raise, no more, no less. If it’s close to our estimates, and pre-commitments then yes, it will be a lot, and I make no apologies or excuses for it. It’s transparent, and if people feel I’m a good investment for this city, we’ll put their money to work. But when it comes to loaning my campaign money, let’s just say that I’m a grad student who works in real estate in Michigan, ‘The Campaign to Elect Nuke’ isn’t getting any blood out of this stone any time soon.

@7 Cosmicon

Interesting idea. Like the notion of sale with transportation easement. Parking rates might have to rise to cover the increased operating cost of private owner’s property taxes, but maybe we could hire some more cops and fire fighters (if the garages are not in the DDA TIF district…). Even if the land were sold to the U, your easement scheme would solve several issues. Need to mull this over further. Good work.

@ 9 Ms. Armentrout

No question, the charter amendment referred to “Sales”.

I am reminded of the time someone tried to explain to me how the definition of “Species” differs in botany vs. zoology.

The idea of a capital lease (vs. an operating lease) is well-established in the accounting profession, and in SEC rules. In short, capital leases are accounted for much like sales – else officers of publicly traded companies are at risk of both property and liberty.

Crudely, if a “lease” term is for at least 75% of the expected life of the asset, or if most of the value of the asset is expected to be used up at the end of the “lease”, one side records an asset sale, and the other records an asset purchase. The “lease” itself is considered just a loan, with “lease” payments assigned interest & principle portions, like a mortgage. The actual definitions are more technical, but include the idea that the lessor has many rights/responsibilities of ownership, which the lessee gives up.

The bedrock principle of financial accounting is “Substance over form”. The idea of capital leasing was created to corral firms who wanted to keep assets off their books by structuring as “leases” what were, effectively, sales/purchases. This is exactly what the Ann Arbor City Council’s “Council Party” proposed to do: structure a sale as a “lease”, even though the University will have most of the rights and responsibilities of ownership, and the city will give up corresponding rights & responsibilities, and the “lease” term (with “optional” 20-year extensions) would approxiate more than 75% of the expected garage life.

Note that Council’s most recent variant of form-shopping is to attempt a non-transaction: to simply “gift” the land via a use agreement (“There’s no lease arrangement involved with Fuller Road Station, he [Hohnke] said.” Did someone alert council to the Capital Lease problem?). Perhaps the idea is “If there’s no consideration given, there’s no sale, right?”. Go back to “Substance over form.” Will the U have the rights & responsibilities of ownership? Will residents give up the rights & responsibilities of ownership? Yes to both, only now the city gets NOTHING in return. [Suckers!]

The idea that council would go transaction-form shopping to avoid the first use of the new charter amendment is one that I think no one contemplated, else a broader definition of transaction would have likely been included in the amendment. I certainly never contemplated this apparent depth of cynicism.

Beyond the irksomeness of this apparent childish game playing, of this apparent attempt to play citizens for simpletons, fools, and suckers, remains this question: if the parking garage really is “the best location in Michigan and in Ann Arbor to provide significant environmental and quality of life benefits and improve multi-modal transportation for everyone”, why the fear of gaining voter approval? As I have said, if Mr. Hohnke’s claim is even a little bit true, it should be a no-brainer for the parking garage to pass a referendum. Why create permanent damage to our civil fabric, sew further distrust of/disgust for our civic institutions, by attempting a needless dance around the charter? The council party seem to fear the voters. Why? If there is something I’m missing, someone please clue me in.

A garage referendum that succeeds on its merits would unite the community behind the project, restore a measure of trust in our government, strengthen our civic fabric, and provide at least a measure of purported benefits. A garage referendum that fails on its merits would similarly restore faith in our public processes, and also save us from yet another apparent civic idiocy. Either way, we win.

Substance over form: Nothing PREVENTS a referendum from being held – except our one-party city council.

Last question: Why would Mr. Hohnke want to be a party to these Leigh Greden-like shenanigans? He seems like he could be such a decent guy.

Democracy – self-government – is only about process. There isn’t anything else to it. Policy and idea differences and discussions are not merely OK – they are VITAL to civic vigor. However, policy disagreements have to be worked out under agreed-to process, and in a spirit of honor. When process becomes self-evidently bogus, when honor seems absent, civic vigor, and democracy itself, are weakened.

“What do we have, Dr. Franklin? A Monarchy or a Republic?” “A Republic, Madam – if you can keep it”.

@8 Mr. Zimmerman,

Hard to disagree with your “Vote the Bums Out” sentiment, referendum or not – except that only one council seat will be contested in November. One-party government takes the edge off of voting, doesn’t it?

Voter turnout is indeed low; allowing this decision to be made by 11 councilpersons instead of referendum lowers the turnout much more dramatically. Our council was elected by the same low-turnout electorate that you distrust to vote on a referendum – and several councilmembers had not even primary compeition, so voters had no choice regardless of turnout. What do we do with that?

Strikes me, nothing like a controversial, high-profile, high-stakes referendum on a November ballot to pump up turnout. Even a 20% referendum turnout would be more legitimate than a decision by 11 people chosen only in 10% turnout, 50% uncontested, primaries.

You finger a vital issue: when people don’t vote, what constitutes “legitimate” public decision? Our council was elected in low-turnout primary elections, generally North Korea-style (i.e., no opponent). Can ANYTHING such a body does be termed “legitimate”? Interesting question.

Our dilema: if we give up on democracy (not to mention our charter) because turnout is low, what form of government shall we have? Anarchist? Oligarchy? Men on white horses-ist?

Much as I share your concern about low turnouts, it strikes me that we should stick with the process we have. In the end, we get the government – and the results – we deserve. That’s what democracy is all about: self-government. If we are too lazy to pay attention, reflect, participate, and fight for what we want, then we deserve what we get.

You finger another vital issue: if moderately-big money can potentially sway elections in illegitimate directions, what shall we make of the $20,000 Mr. Hohnke spent on his 5th Ward council seat? What shall we make of the $40,000 – $60,000 that Mr. Clark proclaims he will spend on the seat Mr. Hohnke occupies? [btw, I feel like a real piker, suggesting I will spend not over $10,000].

As a councilman, I would want ideas fully, honestly discussed in public – even in council meetings! That means tolerating disagreement, respecting process, respecting the public, and honoring the spirit of our laws.

Enough for now.

John Floyd
Republican for City Council
5th Ward