Comments on: Park Issues Dominate Council Deliberations

By: john floyd

john floyd — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:21:32 +0000

David, the only real protection is to hold council members accountable for their actions by removing them from office.

By: Dave Cahill

Dave Cahill — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:41:52 +0000

All the ways that the Council can slime around a park protection charter amendment must be considered, and the ways must be blocked.

Otherwise an amendment would be an exercise in futility, and the public would feel betrayed yet again.

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:41:05 +0000

Re (2), David, are you saying that if the amendment as drafted by Council members Lumm and Anglin had passed, the Fuller Road Amtrak station advocates on Council would have built the station and let Amtrak use it without a lease, just to circumvent the will of the voters? That would be pretty bold, even for the current majority/Amtrak station advocates.

Hopefully Council will learn to respect our parks rather than look for technicalities and loopholes.

By: Diana Bowman

Diana Bowman — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:18:54 +0000

If the city wants sidewalks for new developments, they need to make that a code requirement.

By: Lawrence Baird

Lawrence Baird — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:08:02 +0000

Slight correction – I said “Eli” Gallup was the city’s first park superintendent.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:39:36 +0000

Re: [3] Whitaker's comment relates to the Maple Cove site plan: [internal link to meeting report section]

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:31:11 +0000

Courts often defer to local authorities’ interpretations of their own zoning ordinances, provided those interpretations are based on clear and substantial evidence. It is my understanding that the City’s own traffic engineer provided just such evidence in this case. There have also been Michigan court cases where local municipalities have had their right to use “health, safety and welfare” clauses upheld. (Florka v City of Detroit, 396 Mich 568; 1963 Mich Lexis 504 (1963), Natural Aggregates Corp v Twp of Brighton, 213 Mich App 287; 1995 Mich App Lexis 409 (1995))

But putting aside the legal argument for a moment: This is just another in a string of projects over several years where the current Mayor and Council have thrown up their hands and approved a project that they all seemed to agree had significant defects. So why is it that after all this time, this mayor, and numerous long-term incumbents (which include attorneys and real estate professionals), OR the long-serving City Attorney, OR even longer-serving planning staff have not set about writing a “health, safety and welfare” clause that the City Attorney CAN support in these “loophole” cases?

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:10:59 +0000

The charter amendment was a piece of lousy drafting that would not have prevented even the construction of a train station on the Fuller Road site – as long as the City did the constructing.

Why do something that won’t even prevent what so many people want to prevent?

Hopefully Council will approve much stronger language in August. If it doesn’t I smell a petition drive coming.

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:02:17 +0000

The Council’s actions on the Park Land Protection amendment to the City Charter raise two concerns, one procedural and one substantive.

Procedurally, we note that the Council made its decision to delay the vote on the Charter amendment before the Council meeting even began. A Council member told me before the meeting that the issue would be delayed. When citizens attend a meeting to express support or opposition to an issue of concern to them, it is disrespectful to have Council make a decision before residents had any chance to discuss the matter.

Substantively, the concerns raised as reason to delay consideration of the ballot measure have little to do with the purpose of the measure. Council member Briere contends that the amendment would not prevent contracting out the management of public pools or golf courses. That is not the concern of the amendment. We currently contract out our recycling service (at arguably higher cost than if city employees performed the tasks), and that has raised no concern. The amendment is intended to prevent disposition of public parks, it not meant to address the wisdom of contracting out management of the parks.

Council member Briere also contends that the amendment would not prevent re-purposing parkland for a fire station, a homeless shelter, a train station or a parking structure, if the facility was owned by the city. Council is planning the abandonment of fire stations. We are unlikely to do much of anything in the near term to address homelessness. If we build a train station for Amtrak, we are likely to lease it to them, which is the very situation addressed by the amendment.

The Charter amendment offered by Council members Lumm and Anglin was narrowly drafted to avoid unforeseen consequences. The language was well vetted, both by City legal staff and the State’s Attorney General’s office.

If Council attempts to address all possible problems, the amendment will surely cause unintended consequences. We should amend the park protections as actual problems arise. In the meantime, Council members should act in a manner that respects the voters’ desire to protect parks from non-park, non-recreational uses.