December 17, 2004
Scott Smith Goes for Green
From Scott Smith:
Elaine,
Thanks for your concern in regards to the proposed spending. We will
take a close look at everything. I saw the proposed advertising for the highway and thought it was quite unattractive. We need to make sure that this money is going to benefit all of the citizens. I would
rather see sidewalk improvements, greenspace improvements, etc.
We will work on it. Let me know if there is anything else of concern.
Take care & Happy Holidays
Scott Smith Ward I
Posted by Elaine at 07:11 AM | Comments (0)
December 16, 2004
Larry King Responds
Here is Larry King's response to the letter about the DDA billboards. Check out the part about how they are not *billboards*, but, instead, *sculpture*. Hmmmmmmmm, *finger to mouth, eyes roll backwards*. Otherwise, I think he has some interesting ideas:
Elaine,
Thanks for the email. I'll have to do a good bit of reading on the
proposed DDA plan ammendments. Some current thoughts though:
1. DDA can already purchase buildings for more than just parking lots. i.e. the purchase of the Bohn Building on Eagle Street and potentialpending project there. So I'm supportive of purchasing underutilized, blighted or abandoned buildings and getting them back producing taxdollars and jobs.
2. The "sails" project is one that I don't view as a billboard. I view it as a sculpture located at our main interchange that indicates this is a special place. At this point my personal tastes (as limited as they are) don't particularly care for the image I've seen of the "sails" project. I am however comfortable with the DDA pursuing an artistic sculpture that captures some of the essense of South Haven and is visible from the interstate.
3. Utilizing TIF dollars for marketing to attract customers to
individual businesses or even groups of businesses within specific
classifications is not something I'm interested in supporting. However,I would be supportive of utilizing TIF dollars to market a specific geographic area (i.e. downtown) to potential new businesses. Call it TIF funded business attraction vs TIF funded customer attraction.
Larry
Posted by Elaine at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)
December 14, 2004
DDA Plans Twenty 30' Billboards with City Tax $$$
Dear City Council Members,
The DDA will soon be seeking the approval of City Council to spend close to 1 million City of South Haven TIF tax dollars. The plan is explained in DDA's Amended Plan, approved 12-1-04, which can be reviewed on The City of South Haven's web page document center, document DACC 2005. See for yourself at http://www.south-haven.com.
The document is addressed to the "Development Area Citizens Council" who is directed to review and advise the City Council. I have no idea what/who this Citizen Council is, nor is it/they listed on the city’s website.
It is alarming enough that this amount of public money might be spent to benefit a handful of downtown business owners rather than the entire citizenship of South Haven. Worse, the plan includes $300,000 tax dollars to be spent on an advertising billboard campaign "grouping of twenty 30' sails" with the city logo on them designed to appear at I196 exit 20 to "pique the curiosity of travelers enough to pull off the highway" and, presumably, shop and eat.
Another $50,000 of public tax money is requested by DDA for even more marketing and advertising. The hope is for an additional billboard on I196 plus other advertising. DDA’s charter is to “provide improvements to the downtown area”, not to do advertising or marketing. It is my hope that advertising efforts will be entrusted to The Chamber of Commerce and The Visitor’s Bureau or the private businesses themselves, not financed by city tax funds. Furthermore, billboards are visual blight and seem to be the opposite of DDA’s mission.
In addition, DDA is asking for a change in their rules that only allows them to purchase property if it is for additional parking. Now they wish to broaden that purchasing power to buy land for whatever reason they wish. This plan seeks $500,000 tax dollars to purchase the Muffler Man corner at Phoenix and Broadway. No explanation is given as to how purchasing this property will benefit the DDA or the citizens of South Haven. While Muffler Man may be an eyesore we can all agree on, it still serves the local taxpayer and pays its own taxes to exist there.
In fairness, it is important to recognize that DDA barely represents downtown merchants or the TIF assessed businesses. DDA’s traditional membership is primarily land developers and restaurateurs. Many merchants deeply resent random “branding”, such as this nautical theme. As a matter of fact, many merchants would prefer a focused identity that, for example, values historical preservation and an all-season theme. Many merchants and residents came to this town specifically to escape tacky branding and, certainly, billboards. These citizens might also join in opposition to this DDA plan.
It is my hope that the City Council will review this "sail" plan carefully. The Mayor is a DDA member so I presume he is already supportive of this plan. I hope that these billboards will not be represented as "notices to the public" or "special signs", like the current advertising banners on city light poles were euphemistically named in order to circumvent the law. The sign ordinance governing billboards needs to be applied (i.e. signs must be more than 1000’ apart). Planning Commission will need to be consulted and satisfied that the required Special Use permits are appropriate. Please trust their wisdom if this goes that far.
Please question the logic that concludes that drivers will veer off their travel agenda to "shop" simply because billboards entice them toward a freeway exit. Then, if you find this to be plausible, please consider that businesses off I196 exits 18 and 22 may be threatened by routing all tourist traffic to exit 20. These other merchants are TIF tax-paying citizens as well and downtown can surely be accessed from all three directions.
Best-case scenario, I hope the Council refuses to endorse such visual blight that is hardly representative of the small-town charm we wish to preserve. Please consider whether $300,000 in taxpayer's money is appropriate for such a dubious and unsightly plan; consider that $300,000 worth of landscaping at the Interstate might have the desired appeal as well.
Bringing this plan to Council in January and February seems to be a convenient schedule that assures that an overwhelming percentage of tax-paying citizens are out of town for the winter. I hope City Council will table the discussion until spring, 2005 so that more detail can be assessed and more voices heard.
DDA is, sadly, entitled to these TIF tax dollars to finance their agenda. But City Council approval is required and is an important roadblock when DDA wishes to expand its mission to advertising, waste public money and defile the views of our lovely town with billboards.
Please consider DDA's request and refuse to endorse it. Interested citizens will be asked to attend the DDA’s January 5, 2005/Noon meeting to request that they withdraw this plan. Your attendance there would go far to promote this effort.
Posted by Elaine at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)
December 13, 2004
Peeved about Paved
OK, so they are "paving Paradise" at Dyckman Park and we are pretty peeved. But let's begin chatting about where we WON'T be peeved to be paved. How about our STREETS, for starters. And not necessarily the whole she-bang like Monroe Blvd enjoyed this past year...I would settle for a little patching and pot-hole filling, at least.
I assume that non-voting residents of North Shore Drive have paid the lion's share of the tax increase passed by voters for paving. Yet this heavily traveled tourist street, densely populated area and school bus route to BOTH new schools does not even appear in the current paving plans. Whazzup with that?
Oak Street (North end, entrance to many residential areas) has endured two years of huge truck traffic as the new condos were built at the old Patterson Marine. The street is ruined and there are no plans to pave. Shouldn't there have been a plan to have these developers repave the damage they caused?
Sent to me by e-mail from a citizen:
"Rumor has it that Quaker Street (yes, DDA) will be moved onto the parking lot by the theatre to straighten out the jog it makes now. A nice new sidewalk would be built by the nice new storefronts to be built along it. I suppose a bending street is as bad as a park that isn't square (that's why Larry King said the piece on the back of Dyckman Park needed to be paved).
Ward 2 people are feeling left out of paving plans too. South Haven Place carries vehicular & pedestrian traffic to Briar Hills & beyond. It is in horrible condition and lacks sidewalks."
Maybe it's time for the rest of the town to have a little bit of the concrete that is being poured downtown.
Posted by Elaine at 08:23 AM | Comments (0)
December 12, 2004
Response from Don Bemis
Don Bemis has given me permission to share his opinion here.
Don is Chairman of the Planning Commission.
He adds:
You may share this message if you preface it as representing my personal opinion only. I cannot speak for the Planning Commission, and when acting as a Commissioner I must support existing law rather than my own opinion.
Dear Elaine,
Your letter to the editor was right on the money.
The Dyckman Park / Huron Parking Lot project was never sent to the Planning Commission for review. DDA leaders knew what they wanted (even though not all DDA members agreed), and the City decided the project was not significant enough to require a site plan. I disagreed. The city attorney supported the city position but did admit that maybe the traffic changes onto Huron should be reviewed. The project planners also intended to reverse traffic flow through the Post Office-owned parking lot. I told City Council that would not be a good idea, but to no avail. However, the Postal Service trumped the DDA. The library unsuccessfully asked the city to include the city lawn (and its treacherous steps) behind the library in any improvement plan. A site plan review could have straightened much out before it ever got to Council.
I was in a local store recently when Janet Fahs asked the clerk how she liked the new parking lot. "I don't like it," the clerk said. Fahs was obviously surprised and asked why not. The clerk replied that it was too confusing and had less spaces than before. Fahs said she'd ask again in six months, apparently thinking the clerk would come around. I'm hearing, "It's a good idea; they'll get used to it," from too many governmental and quasigovernmental types these days. They forget who is serving whom. Bill Bradley & I disagree more often than we agree, but I have to agree with him on that point.
Now I hear the DDA may be interested in relocating Quaker Street by the theatre. Janet Fahs didn't know about that but said City Council doesn't always know what the DDA is doing.
The banner fiasco did more to torpedo a meaningful sign ordinance than anything else I can think of. I did a fair amount of business traveling around the country before I left Palisades. I kept my eyes open for banners, particularly those with advertisements. I only saw two communities with advertising banners like ours. One was along the South Shore line to Chicago, and I don't think we want to look like them. The other was on Cicero Avenue between Midway Airport and the freeway, and I don't think we want to look like that either. I did see many communities where non-commercial banners obscured business signs, interesting architecture, and expensive streetscape improvements.
Don Bemis
Posted by Elaine at 06:48 PM | Comments (0)
Response from Bill Bradley
Bill Bradley wrote:
> Elaine,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail. I am always glad to hear what people have to say about city business. You have covered a lot of ground, so much that I doubt that it is practical for me to deal with it all in an e-mail. However, I will make a few comments. Also, I would be willing to meet with you at a time and place of your choosing any time after January 1 to discuss any items you would like. I will be leaving to visit relatives in a few days and will be gone until the end of the month.
One of the basic problems that government has is that it cannot please all the people. Instead we end up spending the people's money to satisfy only some, while others are unhappy that we didn't spend their money the way they wanted.
Taking parks for an example, there are a number of people who have strong views on what the park should or should not be and what it should or should not look like. No matter how we spend the tax payer's dollars, someone is going to disagree with the results. That is one reason why I prefer the free market as opposed to government control. Let those who want something, get together, decide what they want and buy it. Those who want something else should do the same thing.
So far as the DDA is concerned. I think it is a mistake for such an organization to even exist. I expect it is going to get worse before it gets better. It amounts to another layer of government, complicates the operation of city government and distorts the way tax money is spent. I would much rather see everyone get a tax cut and let them spend their money as they choose than to have the DDA involved in spending any tax money.
>
> I am of the opinion that government should be as small, frugal, and non-interfering to the greatest extent possible. If the merchants in the downtown area want a parking lot, they should get together and create one, using their own money to do so. We are even inconsistent within our city. The city does not provide parking for anyone in the uptown area. (That is the commercial area on the east side of town.) I see no reason why tax money should be spent to provide parking downtown. That is why I voted against spending a half million dollars on the Huron Street parking lot.
>
> So far as the trees and flower islands downtown are concerned, again I say, let those who want them pay for them directly. Requiring people who may prefer to spend their money for other things, should not be forced to spend there money on things they don't want and do not use. You have done a magnificent job with the landscaping on your property and I commend you for that. I assume you did it for several reasons, and did it with your own money, rather than requiring the taxpayer to help pay for it. I also suspect that you would not have wanted all your friends and neighbors, plus the Parks Commission and the City Council to require you to accept their input. Of course, city government already intrudes onto your private property by way of zoning ordinances and I assume you have had enough of that already.
>
> Personally, I do not consider commercial advertisements as blight. Advertising serves a useful purpose. People can and do disagree over where, when and how to advertise, and when you get down to the details, the best way to do it is always a matter of personal opinion. In the free market, the person who pays gets to decide. In government, the person with the most power gets to decide. Like beauty, whether signs are good or bad is in the eye, or rather in the mind of the beholder. Technically, the signs are not classified as advertising. They are notices to the public as to who is providing the service of maintaining the islands. It is the same idea that the organizations that support public TV are not advertising when you see their names as supporters of public TV. I realize that this is splitting hairs, but include it for what it is worth.
Please accept my offer to meet with you, including any others you may wish to include, and we can discuss any or all of these matters.
Again, my thanks for your letter.
Bill Bradley
My Response:
Dear Bill,
Thank you for your response. Your opinion about government is already well known and I am familiar
with your views. But we still have government to deal with whether we approve or not.
It also makes no sense to me that you approve of private advertising on public land. Does this mean that I should go ahead and place a "Yelton Manor B&B" sign in Dyckman Beach because I walk over daily and clear garbage there? What if everyone did...instead of just the few chosen cronies of city hall? I guess, under your idea of non-government, we would all just place our billboards wherever we pleased? Is there enough public space for that many "notices to the public" in your free-of-government society?
You see NO case for government policy here?
I say thank god for government that, at least, restricts this practice to the technical "notices to the public".
I would also be curious to know when "notices" becomes advertising in your definition. In 11 years of organizing the 4th of July parade I never put the name of my business on it.
I pay for 6 planter signs on the bridge and I do not advertise there.
And, no, I don't "notice" the public that I tend Dyckman Beach.
My advertising is on my private property where it belongs.
Public park and public land should about beauty and inclusion, not advertising and cronyism. Everyone pays the taxes to maintain public land, not just me and not just the DDA. Everyone.
Sincerely, Elaine
Posted by Elaine at 05:42 PM | Comments (0)
December 06, 2004
Hooray for Scott Smith
Elaine,
Did Dorothy tell you that I have been working behind the scenes with one of the school board members to get the area known as Baer Park donated to the city to turn convert to a true park. Previously, the plan was to sell the entire property to the developer-thereby making the property private. We are encouraging the school board to write a contingency that the park property must be donated to the city (to be placed in the park system). This would be a substantial park in the downtown area!! The school board meets tomorrow night. If you think this should become a park then you may want to contact school board members or go to the meeting. I think it would be a shame to lose this one to private development. Just trying to keep it green!!
Take care,
Scott Smith Ward I
After this note I contacted school board members and Dave Meyer, the
Superintendant. I received a note back indicating that the motion tonite will read with this contingency that gives the city Baer Park.
This is a wonderful victory for park lovers. Kudos to Scott and all who are making this a reality. E.
Posted by Elaine at 04:48 PM | Comments (0)
Response from Larry King
Elaine,
Thanks for the email and I'm glad to hear you attended the Parks
Commission meeting.
At this point Dyckman Park will be replanted according to the original
design approved by the Parks Commission, DDA and City Council. Expanded plantings and changes in Dyckman Park were going to be made from savings in the Huron Street Parking Lot project, however, a number of individuals on the Parks Commission voiced concerns.
Given prior discussions with this group from the Parks Commission on the Evergreens and the squaring off of the park, I voted to not do the
expanded plantings and additional work in Dyckman Park. This was
in-line with their request.
Council also stated at the time of that vote that we would like the
Parks Commission to work up what they would like to see become of
Dyckman Park. At this point it remains with the Parks Commission.
Until the Parks Commission sets a direction and makes a recommendation
to council I can champion nothing.
Larry
My response to Larry:
Dear Larry,
That isn't exactly the message at The Park Commission meeting.
And if the plan is already set....why is council calling for a new plan?
The Parks Commission wants screening and claims the DDA doesn't.
There is absolute DDA desire to SEE the parking lot, they say.
Phooey, they say..and so do I.
Anyway, the DDA is the problem. Including their notion to give it a "nautical theme", according to Dorothy. This tiny park deserves a formal touch, not a tacky rope/piling/plastic shorebird approach, IMHO.
Mixed messages and unclear direction seems to be confusing Parks.
DDA is powerful and focused, thus my fears.
I know where your loyalties lie and that's fine.
I just hope you'll champion the idea of green screen from the parking lot. Please.
E.
Posted by Elaine at 04:46 PM | Comments (0)
Response from Scott Smith
Elaine,
I agree that we need to put the park back together again. The loss of
evergreens in the rear of the park can be corrected and improved upon.
The reason for the postponement of the reconstruction is to make sure
that we do it right. In the past, the rear of the park was not
usable.
There was not enough seating in the park. It is my hope that the
Parks commission will spend some time and come up with a simple plan for putting the park back together. We need to know how many benches and how to configure them. We need to know the types of trees to plant, etc. We need to investigate ways to improve the rear of the park and provide seating and natural screening.
I know that you are aware of the overall plan and that there will be
more trees when we are finished with this project. The removal of
the bathrooms and cleaning up of this area will make it a nicer park when we are through. Now we just need a simple plan to put it back together.
It is my hope that we can get creative and plant some unique trees and
perennials that will make the park more enjoyable for all. Wouldn't
it be nice to attract birds, butterflies, etc. I would personally
volunteer to put in some labor to make this park beautiful again.
I appreciate your input. I personally do not feel obligated to the
DDA. When I vote, I am truly looking for the best outcome for our city as a whole. If you want to tap my brain some more just shoot me an e-mail or give me a call. I hope that you work with Dorothy to get a plan to us in the next month so we can get this done in the early spring.
Take care,
Scott Smith Ward I
After I asked Scott if I could share his response, he responded this way:
Elaine,
Yes, feel free to share my response with Dorothy and anyone else. Did
Dorothy tell you that I have been working behind the scenes with one of the school board members to get the area known as Baer Park donated to the city to turn convert to a true park. Previously, the plan was to sell the entire property to the developer-thereby making the property private. We are encouraging the school board to write a contingency that the park property must be donated to the city (to be placed in the park system). This would be a substantial park in the downtown area!!
The school board meets tomorrow night. If you think this should become a park then you may want to contact school board members or go to the meeting. I think it would be a shame to lose this one to private development.
Just trying to keep it green!!
Take care,
Scott Smith Ward I
Posted by Elaine at 06:57 AM | Comments (0)
December 01, 2004
Concerns about Dyckman Park
Last night Dorothy Appleyard invited me to attend a workshop session of The Parks Commission.
The current question of how to renovate Dyckman park after it's unfortunate maiming for the sake of the downtown parking lot concerns many,including me. The small space left after the paved decimation in the rear of the park is a real challenge to the task of planting evergreens which would replace screening, restore privacy and recreate
a sense of intimate space to this park. But this is The Park Commission's desire, to their credit.
Most challenging and disturbing in this effort is the notion that the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) owns and operates this public park for its own commercial opportunities. The DDA's prevailing attitude that green screen is UNDESIRABLE so that people can specifically SEE the parking lot is the fundamental argument between DDA and park advocates. Looking through that decimated rear area of the park to view the glaring lights of Countryhouse Furniture and a mass of concrete and cars is NOT attractive nor an asset to citizens.
The DDA's further sense of ownership reveals itself in the unattractive "village" now set up in the park. Who says they can do this? Can commercial signs on these placards be far behind? Remember the banner debacle that provided commercial advertising on all the public light posts in town?
And now the small garden islands on Phoenix St. downtown have
commercial advertisements in them simply because "the merchants
volunteer to maintain them". So what? Volunteers do 1000s of tasks
that benefit the city without expecting to display their business name on them. If downtown merchants are not willing to pick debris out of these small gardens as an act of good citizenship, then the city workers themselves can certainly spare the few minutes a day to do it themselves on the taxpayer dime. Obtaining another high profile city asset for blatant advertisement and for no cost is unconscionable. It is selfish, ugly, unethical and, possibly illegal. These public gardens belong to the public. The tax dollars we pay should insure us
against the hijack of our few public spaces for commercial aggrandizement.
And the same is true for Dyckman Park. As an intimate space buffering shopping from parking, this park should be a protected oasis. It should be low maintenance garden,with evergreen shrubs and trees, numerous benches for sitting and a few pretty beds of annual plants for summer color. Just like it WAS. Most important, it should have adequate green screen from the glare and blight of the parking lot, just like it DID before it was disfigured to add additional parking lot.
We need a champion on the Council who isn't a yes-man to merchants,
but a spokesperson for all citizens. We need a voice for trees and beauty. We need a strong opponent to the visual blight of commercial advertisements in our public spaces. Someone must challenge the DDA's sense of ownership of the citizen's downtown green space.
I have sent this letter to The City Council members. Here I ask the citizens of South Haven to speak up for Dyckman park as well.
Posted by Elaine at 12:51 PM | Comments (1)