January 31, 2005
DDA Chairman Takes the Low Road
Council and Friends,
Quoted in yesterday's S. H. Tribune, John Braun, Chairman of the Board of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) , said this of the DDA's plan to spend millions of property tax dollars on advertising:
"It is unfortunate that so much has been written denouncing the amendment based on inaccuracy, twisted information and personal agendas."
Considering the fact that the caution and opposition has come from Council members, a reputable ex-Mayor, the Chairman of the Planning Commission, successful local business people and many life-long residents of South Haven, I consider this rude accusation a very cheap shot and certainly a cop-out.
As the head of the DDA, Mr. Braun might be expected to explain this accusation.
All information in the press and in letters to Council were
taken directly from the DDA's own public reports and meetings.
Much research was done.
Much care was taken to check and re-check the facts.
Mr. Braun does not explain what was "inaccurate or twisted".
Nor does he explain what he means by "personal agenda".
This proposal should be debated on the facts, not by intimidation and insult.
Dorothy Appleyard said this to me by email:
"Now that I think about it, I guess I do have a personal agenda...
it's to return the control of tax revenues to the taxpayer
or at least to those elected by the taxpayer!"
I believe that Mr. Braun owes everyone an explanation and an apology.
The City Manager, the actual executive officer of the DDA, should direct Mr. Braun to the *high road*.
Sincerely,
Elaine
Posted by Elaine at 09:38 AM | Comments (2)
January 27, 2005
Can Larry King be Impartial, Part 2
I got a nice response to that question from Larry King that included this:
"....With this particular DDA plan amendment, I took it from both sides. There was a group adamantly opposed that felt I would vote yes because of a) I do what downtown business tell me to do; or b) I would be getting a raise if it passed.
There was another group in support of the plan that felt I would vote no because a) I dislike downtown business and don't understand them; or b)It would create competition for the chamber and we would loose
memberships.
In the end, you can't make decisions based upon how you think people
will feel. You have to make them based on good research, and good
thinking. And, yes I do feel....was out of line with her request.
That doesn't mean I didn't hear the concerns expressed by those asking
questions and expressing concerns on the proposed amendments. It means I recognize the technique and strategy....and feel it contributes nothing to a process of good governance."
And this from a knowledgable citizen:
"We need to be careful about recusal requests. They cut both ways. Vikke presented a strong but not ironclad case. All decisions must be based on law, and recusing should only occur when a person cannot be reasonably expected to uphold the law. Planning Commissioners were given legal advice years back that we could only abstain if we had a direct financial interest in the outcome. A B&B owner on the Commission could not be excused just because another B&B down the street requested something, but the person should be excused if the decision would directly and tangibly affect their own business or if a close relative was making the request. A compelling request to recuse Larry King could be tricky because he represents merchants outside the DDA as well as inside, and they have the right to representation on Council like anybody else Ward 2 elected Larry King; the DDA didn't. Ward 2 would decide his future on the Council if he chose to run again. Recusing would be appropriate if it could be shown that Larry's professional or economic future would be directly affected by his decision. We don't ask all home owners on Council to stand down from decisions affecting homes throughout the City. I think Larry is biased toward the DDA (as others are against it), but that alone should not be a reason for him to stay out of the process. Otherwise nobody with strong opinions could run for office or take a board post. A City Council person would feel justified in silencing or removing anyone who strenuously disagreed with them. We are all biased. The problem comes when our biases lead us to act unfairly."
Interesting, hm?
Posted by Elaine at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)
About Bill Bradley
Bill Bradley is a City Councilman. He is an avowed Libertarian.
For those interested in all things political and even those simply
curious, it's a fascinating American political party to get to know.
I admit, at first, that Bill occasionally used to annoy me because it seemed he served only as a pesky obstructionist on the Council.
Of course, that's purely psycho because I am surely the exact same type of "annoyer". DUH!
Bill is a true believer in the philosophy of Libertarianism.
He's a reliable rock solid opinion against government in our lives, pure and period.
"So what is he doing in government?", I used to growl a bit.
Well, involved in government is where we all need to be but....NOT.
That's the idea Bill represents.
I have heard Bill explain his vote on every issue since he became a councilman.
(Any explanations from Council are rare indeed.)
He warns us, always, to keep a keen and relentless eye on government's control over our lives.
And Bill's role is to be IN government trying to shut IT down from
excessive taxing and interference in our life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.
Hmmmmmmm..........
I am fascinated by the topic and I am going to ask Bill if he might participate in a Watchdog blog telling us about The Libertarian Party and philosophy.
And, yo, readers, I *know* you are out there. Denise Hartman (who owns this site)is more than willing to add you as a contributor to the Watchdog site. I especially invite Council members, DDA Board Members, Kevin Anderson,the Planning Commission/ZBA members, local Dems and some young people to log in with information, argument, communication. Let's chat.
Anyway, I digress. I hope Bill will set up a Libertarian Party blog right next to the Greens and the Dems on Watchdog.
And, garsh, I suppose we'll have to invite those pesky Republicans too.
Oh, and Bill Bradley has the deepest, most beautiful voice you ever heard.
Too bad he missed a career in the golden age of radio.
Posted by Elaine at 12:49 PM | Comments (0)
January 24, 2005
Looking Back/ Looking Forward
Hindsight is 20-20.
The mission of the DDA is:
"to correct and prevent deterioration in business districts".
The law's definition of the DDA district is:
"downtown area zoned and used principally for business".
In 2000, the DDA annexed huge area to their taxing district. This annexed area is overwhelmingly residential, all waterfront and hardly deteriorating in any sense of the word. The North Shore Drive lakefront area and the riverfront are the hottest, richest real estate in town.
In 2003, the city attempted to REzone the North Shore Drive peninsula
(Dyckman southbound to the North Beach) to be an unprecedented zone they named "traditional resort neighborhood". This would have changed the completely residential neighborhood to allow business development. It was roundly rejected by the residents.
Hindsight has me wondering: Was this an attempt, 2 years after the expansion of the DDA district, to bring the newly annexed DDA area into compliance with the law?
Hindsight should also help the council know where DDA's billboard plan for the Interstate will lead if allowed. In 2003 DDA invested $60,000 in advertising banners that were in stark violation of the sign ordinance. The council got them out of their jam by changing the ordinance to fit the banner plan. Has this made DDA more cautious or attentive to the law? No. The new billboard plan is also in stark violation of the ordinance. Hindsight says they will ask the Council to change the ordinance again.
It's time to focus our attention in the present to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Posted by Elaine at 07:11 AM | Comments (0)
January 23, 2005
DDA Captures Local, County and State School Taxes
The DDA document shows that their incremental "TIF" tax capture includes ALL of the county taxes, including school taxes otherwise headed for the Van Buren ISD (County Schools) and Lake Michigan College. DDA captures all the state school taxes as well.
City of South Haven taxes are not exempt from capture either: City school taxes of nonhomestead properties (in the original DDA district) are in DDA coffers to the tune of 18 mils.
They've been capturing those school taxes since DDA was formed 20 years ago.
This means that DDA has all the TIF district monies voted for in the school, college, drug enforcement, Headley rollback and street repair millage votes passed by voters the last three years. We did not get what we voted for.
From where else is the DDA taking revenue? The Van Buren County taxes, City of South Haven general operating budget, narcotics enforcement, streets, refuse, library, hospital and senior services.
The DDA document reveals that DDA takes in 54.9506 mils from the original district and 24.7494 mils from the more recently annexed district #2 (the state outlawed school tax capture by then).
This is interesting: DDA claims they have captured about $1/2 million in taxes in the last 4 years. Yet they have spent many, many millions and the new plan calls for many millions more. So, what they are doing is leveraging their future revenue against large debt to fund what they want to do. The law says that they can do that.
But is it being done responsibly? Are the choices good ones?
The debt makes sure that DDA cannot be disbanded, that's for sure. But we can surely stop them from expanding their debt to highway billboards and TV advertising. And we can insist that they scale back the district to exclude prime residential waterfront development area and stick to the downtown district, zoned and used for business, as the state law dictates.
And we can surely expect more accountability, including organizing the mandated Citizens's Advisory Council, submitting to Planning Commission oversight and ordinance compliance for projects, seeking competitive bids and practicing financial responsibility. No more hiding in the shadows for the DDA.
Posted by Elaine at 06:08 PM | Comments (0)
South Haven Tribune: Hello?
Today's weekly paper is out with no story at all about Monday's Council Meeting. I hardly recall a Tribune after a Council meeting without a front page article on what was discussed. The DDA issue was hotly contested and the chairs were full of bystanders, yet no report.
That's just wierd.
Posted by Elaine at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)
January 22, 2005
Another Great Idea
I received an email this morning from a resident
who has been interested in the DDA situation. He suggests that:
"Summer homies are now the majority, and apparently soon to be
an overwhelming majority. If the DDA Citizen's Advisory Panel
was structured to represent them (perhaps via email?) they would
finally have some voice in what goes on here and be in the corner
of those who gave them that voice."
I agree! I suggest that the city send a letter to all the DDA district
residents inviting them to join the Citizen's Advisory Council.
Tell them what the Advisory Council is and why the opinion of residents should balance the opinion of businesspeople at the DDA.
Keep these residents updated continuously through email, conference calls, online chat or city website forum. Today's digital connections give us the opportunity for communication and progress independent of sit-down meetings at city hall.
This also takes away whatever reason DDA has offered for failing to assemble this mandated Citizen's Advisory Council as of today.
Many thanks to Tom for that thoughtful suggestion.
Posted by Elaine at 11:17 AM | Comments (0)
So Many New Questions!
Dear Council and Residents,
The DDA has now published their explanation of what they are, how they are financed, what they have financed in the past years and what their plans are. There are even some vague financials included. This is all on the city's website, dated January 2005. Navigate to DDA and then to "What is the DDA and what is the plan?" You must have Microsoft Internet Explorer (doesn't work for Netscape) and a current enough computer (Windows 2000 or better) to have Adobe Acrobat Reader.
I hope the city makes free copies for residents who do not have this capability. Better yet, I hope they publish the entire document in the newspaper.
This multi-page document is a first step. Questions come leaping from every line.
The first thought that must come to mind is: Who made the decisions to spend all this money?
None of these projects appeared in the city's budget subject to public hearing and/or Council approval. The decisions were made by 7 businesspeople and the city manager.
The second thought is obvious: Did they spend a lot of public money on wasted and/or bungled studies and projects? You decide if we got our money's worth. For your amusement: At the very end is a list of the things that DDA feels would have been "difficult, if not impossible to fund" were it not for DDA: These phenomena include holiday lighting, new garbage cans, flower beds (the ones with signs advertising their sponsors!) and other projects. Gimme a break. I think we could have created those projects by taking a lunchtime collection of
pocket change from the Clementine's crowd.
Third: How could some of these completed projects *possibly* cost so much?
Like $200,000 for handicap capability in the Dyckman Park bathrooms?
These are single stall facilities and the bathrooms are owned by the Visitor's Bureau,not the city. ???????????? Must be a doozy of a bathroom.
You can find more.
Check out how much was paid for Avery Park. $500,000.00.
I could create 10 times that much landscape with that much cash.
The skating rink cost $400,000.00?? I know for a fact that the Visitor's Bureau donated too...possibly the Chamber of Commerce pitched in as well?
Holy Jiminy, we should all get free skates.
Better yet, St. Joseph St. residents might not have had to take out loans to pay their sewer reconstruction assessments.
This is, indeed, thin ice.
Makes me wonder who the contractors were who enjoyed these windfalls.
Were the projects bid out for estimates and equal opportunity like city contracts are bid?
In the near future, NOT including the 2 million requested in the new plan, are 1.5 million for a Quaker St. parking structure, $400,000 for
additional parking (are we expecting a Superbowl here?) and $300,000 to improve Quaker St. (in anticipation of the humungous condo developement?).
They also have 1 full $1 million for improvements to Baseline Road.
Isn't Baseline a County Road?
There is absolutely no plan in sight to pave North Shore Drive, the biggest contributor by far to DDA coffers.
Just a few preliminary thoughts. Check out the document.
Let's ask questions about DDA decisions.
Let's ask questions about whether expanding the mission of the DDA is earned or appropriate.
Then let's ask questions about whether the DDA has outlived its usefulness in city that is no longer facing the circumstances that necessitated its creation.
Council members: please consider the creation of a public discussion through a forum on the city's website. This would create an opportunity for all, including out-of-town residents, to submit their questions and be answered by the Council and DDA. We would all benefit from open and accessible discussion.
Posted by Elaine at 08:16 AM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2005
Janet Fahs gets Another Response to her Query
Tim Stegeman, Councilman, answers Janet Fah's question too.....
Janet, in my opinion it is better to have more work completed on this
proposal. I think it is better to have a public hearing on items that are relatively ready to pass. Otherwise we end up with many hearings at greater costs. Also, I think Council's past action in regards to the PSD speaks volumes as far as using tax funds for marketing. I suppose there is no hurt in that group trying again, especially when it is possible by state law, but, I am still under the impression that the majority is not in favor even if this isn't a direct tax to the business such as the PSD orginally proposed. I would also imagine that some of Council is still concerned with the action of the DDA regarding banners.
What ordinance will the Council have to change next to pacify the
actions of the DDA?
Tim Stegeman
Ward Three Councilperson
City of South Haven
Keep the discussion coming!
Posted by Elaine at 05:51 PM | Comments (0)
Can Larry King be Impartial?
At the Council meeting there was a request from a resident that Larry King excuse himself from the DDA vote. This lends itself to discussion.
Larry has been the Director of South Haven's Chamber of Commerce for
almost 20 years. I have watched him mature in that role and he does a good job. I like Larry. I am especially fond of his wife, Trish, who is a straight-shooter with a ready wit. Both have contributed enormously to South Haven in their work and in volunteer capacities.
I consider them friends.
I was on The Planning Commission years ago and was occasionally asked to excuse myself from a site plan review because it was from another inn. I recall saying no because the Planning Commission has no wiggle room (that's what the Zoning Board of Appeals is for), but simply judges by the rule of law, same for everyone.
But in this DDA decision there is nothing BUT subjective judgement, no
ironclad rules for making the decision. Larry is *employed* by business. His career is to promote and advertise South Haven. Can he judge the DDA plan to spend millions of property tax dollars on marketing by its merits and flaws?
It seem to me that what he MUST do is judge and vote on the plan according to what his Ward residents want and need.
And that's what Larry King needs to ask himself. Can I do what my residents want if it's different than what the DDA wants?
If he can answer yes to that question he should vote. If not, no way.
But is it really that simple?
The primary reason I do not run for Council myself is that I am an active proponent for a rental ordinance in South Haven. We need an ordinance to shield residential neighborhoods from transient rentals and protect renters from substandard and dangerous accommodations. But it would also hold cottage rentals to the same codes and taxes that my inn pays and level the playing field in the market. If I were on Council it will look like I was doing nothing but voting for my own business by imposing (the same) standards on others. While this might be true, my heart knows that I have the benefits of the whole picture in mind.
To add to the confusion, most of the condos, cottages and homes in my ward are rentals. If I was on the council my residents would be very opposed to a rental ordinance because it would enforce codes and zoning that make their rentals illegal. Would I be bound to do their wishes OR what I know is right? Whew, what a decision! Not so simple.
So I understand Larry King's conundrum.
Larry King has to decide what to do.
What do you think about this?
Posted by Elaine at 03:03 PM | Comments (0)
Council Asks and gets an Answer
Janet Fahs was one of the 3 councilpeople who voted *against* postponing the DDA public hearing. Today Janet Fahs wrote to the entire Council, city manager and DDA director with this "explanation".
It seems she believes that the public, somehow, is responsible for telling the DDA Board how to present their plan.
Don Bemis, chairman of the Planning Commission, responds with a note of instruction on how the system actually works.
Ms. Fahs:
"In my opinion, a real good way to hear the concerns of everyone, not
just the city council, is to hold a "public" hearing. I'm not sure why the council elected to deny the public from hearing about this and being able to have input to the plan themselves. Now, we don't really know if it is the cost of the items, the advice the DDA received from their consultants, misunderstandings about the DDA in general, or perhaps just a dislike of the idea of a DDA that is the problem. If we aren't happy with the DDA presentation, they deserve to know what we need. Maybe, no one is interested in any of the new programs the State is allowing, who knows. Or maybe one of them might be creatively and jointly implemented to help bring jobs to South Haven. I think the DDA could do a better job in preparing if they had constructive criticism to work with."
Don Bemis:
I agree that a public hearing is the most effective way to get public input to a plan. I tried to make two points at the City Council meeting: (1) There isn't yet a plan ready for useful public comment; and (2) recent history shows the need for a specific plan that is open to meaningful input. The DDA submittal so far has ideas, and some might be very good, but when we hear things at DDA meetings like, "There won't necessarily be sails; that is only one possibility," we may ask what plan we are to comment on. That is why Council is right to expect a specific plan with defined commitments. Then the public can present concrete, useful comments.
If the City Council had set a public hearing as requested, the hearing likely would have generated enough complaints about the plan's vagueness that Council would have had to say, "Take it back, DDA, and bring us something more concrete." In other words, the same answer Council gave them last Monday would have come a few weeks later. The decision was actually a favor to the DDA because it gives them a head start on the same changes, with the additional reminder that they need to work with their audience. Now they can listen, tweak, and repackage the plan before placing it on the public altar.
I am following this as an individual citizen and do not pretend to speak for the Planning Commission. My experience there may help clarify the process, though. The Planning Commission sends inadequate plans back to applicants, unless city staff does it first (staff does an excellent job, by the way). Preliminary reviews are available to applicants who wish to identify sticking points while they are still cheap to fix. By the time final reviews and public hearings come around, explicit commitments are involved. We sometimes feel it useful to remind applicants that any deviations from approved plans will require formal amendments. If an application is silent on some point, we can't say later, "Wait a minute- that's not what we expected." The same should go for a DDA plan submitted to City Council. Be sure everything is in it that you and the public will think is important later.
Last Monday, the City Council said, "This plan is not ready for comment." That is different from saying, "This plan is no good."
Posted by Elaine at 07:03 AM | Comments (0)
January 20, 2005
A Letter of Support and Response
Today I received a letter in the mail (REAL mail, how quaint!) saying thank you for the city council presentation on Monday. The letter came from two people I admire very much and I was very heartened by their
statement: "Your research and clear explanation exemplified the need of every citizen to closely observe the direction that our elected officials are going with public land and funding".
Here is an edited portion of my response. After writing this I realized that this plea should go out to all:
Dear XXXXXX,
Your letter of support heartens me and I thank you very much.
This is a heady time for those of us who love our town. Much has been
revealed about deals made in city hall between our ambitious city manager and developers.
Very soon enormous condo projects are coming to Planning Commission in huge violation of height and density codes and ordinances. All are trade-offs with promises from the DDA, which gets the tax millions these projects generate, and none of it passes the proverbial smell test. ZBA will have to be convinced to turn them down and Council will need to know that we have no more tolerance for ordinance flushing. Council needs to know that we believe these are outrageous developments that threaten the essence of our beautiful town.
All three wards have a council seat vacating this year. A new mayor will also be elected.
This is a tremendous opportunity…or a tumble into disaster. We need candidates.
Please consider this yourself and/or ask around to your friends of like mind. This is a desperate and important hour.
Please also consider lending your important name and person to a letter to the editor to both Tribune and Herald Palladium, emails to city council (all available on the city’s website) and a statement of your concern at the inevitable public hearing. Read the latest information and consider becoming a contributor on my “Our Town” blog at www.shwatchdog.org. Spread the questions and the information. We must be in this as a formidable, collective voice.
If you would like to be on my ongoing email update, drop me an email at elaine@yeltonmanor.com.
Thanks again for your kindness and support.
Posted by Elaine at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)
January 19, 2005
Herald-Palladium Op/Ed Speaks out on DDA
"In Our Opinion 1-19-2005
South Haven DDA
Council is on target in asking for more details about project
The South Haven Downtown Development Autority essentially has been told to "go back to the drawing board" in the words of one South Haven City Council member, regarding a proposal to greatly increase the DDA's mission.
We think that's a wise decision.
The DDA's plan to spend nearly $1.5 million in improvement projects and marketing has caught the attention of a fair number of city residents. Two have written detailed letters to the editor of this newspaper. Some of the questions they have raised deserve an answer from the DDA.
On Monday night the City Council turned down the DDA's request to hold a public hearing on the proposal. In a 4-3 vote-surprisingly close given the stakes-the council majority directed DDA members to submit more specific plans about the proposal.
This is entirely approproate. Councilman Tim Stegeman reported during Monday's meeting that he had attended the previous DDA meeting, where the proposal was outlined, and that "I'm not sure of their thinking". Stegeman, and indeed the entire city population, deserve to be fully informed about what the DDA's plans are.
Unlike a school board, for example, which must take it's case directly to the voters in the form of a millage election to raise funds for new or improved facilities, the DDA only has to convince a very small number of city council members that its plans for spending city taxpayer money are appropriate.
In the end the DDA may still get its way, and maybe deservedly so. But before it does, more people need to be on the same page about where the DDA is coming from, because once such a decision is made there will be no going back."
Well, we're lovin THIS. Let's also not forget that school board members are also elected, while DDA board members are appointed by the City Manager. School board members are also required to LIVE in the city, DDA members are not. The beat goes on.
Much thanks to Andrew Lersten for seeing it our way at the regional press....while our local paper takes the city's side in their editorial and buries it on nearly the last page. The Tribune thought a story of a lost and abused dog was much more important on the front page. Thanks, Andrew.
Posted by Elaine at 07:44 PM | Comments (0)
A Concerned Citizen Speaks
Someone gave me a copy of this today:
This letter was sent to City Council by a resident.
There are some interesting points here which I trust influenced Council's wise and cautionary vote this week.
I have edited it a bit for length, but kept the gist....
"...I am a permanent resident of South Haven, a licensed builder and also an owner of commercial real estate in downtown South Haven where my wife owns and operates a retail store. I understand that DDA is making proposals to City Council and I would like to share my thoughts and concerns.
First, we should acknowledge that the purpose for which the DDA was originally formed (to revitalize blighted downtown areas) is no longer required. Downtown real estate is hot. Prices are skyrocketing without government involvment. The market is efficient and strong and there is simply no need for the city to buy the downtown real estate. In fact, the thought of the city commission with deep pockets involved in an otherwise healthy market is kind of scary. What incentive does a real estate owner have to fix up and sell property at a fair price to a well-intentioned buyer if the government is standing by with money to spend and a directive to buy real estate? By definition the city would be paying more than market value and wasting tax dollars.
It is also my understanding that the role of DDA has been expanding. We need to be careful that the activities (ie, marketing, business promotion, recreational activities, decoration) might really belong under the auspices of some other commission or outside of the government realm entirely. We also shouldn't expand DDA activities just because the DDA has funding and needs/wants to spend it.
As a result of the growth of the area covered by the DDA disrict the tax revenues captured by DDA have grown tremendously. We need to publicly state how much money DDA currently controls and how much is projected to flow to them in the next decades. These figures should be compared to the rest of the city budget. DDA plans should be considered along with other needs including streets, school, safety,
fire, police, etc. My concern is that the expansion of the DDA district has given DDA funding beyond what they require to fulfill their basic mission. At the same time, other city services are under budget constraints and service levels have been curtailed. I am assuming that DDA prepares detailed financial projections and spending plans---if they don't, we have another issue.
One of the reasons DDA is such an emotional issue is the perception that residents are not fairly represented vis a vis business interests. There is supposed to be a Development Area Citizens Council with a legal standing equivelent to the DDA itself. This Council has not been active for several years. One of the reasons may be that the Citizen's Council, mandated by DDA state law, has not been included in the list of City Commission openings published by the city. I suggest that the City Council make sure that the Citizen's Council is reestablished, supported by the city and given a chance to participate before considering any further proposals from DDA.
I believe that the perception that DDA may not represent the resident point of view is also due to the expansion of DDA activities beyond their scope. DDA involvment with parks, for example, has left the impression that Park's Commission has no say. Just because something is in the DDA district should not mean that DDA has the loudest say OR that residents outside DDA district don't have an interest.
We also need to ask ourselves whether the current goals and visions of DDA are consistent with those of city residents. Judging by the outcry over banners and trees there are obviously some differences. There is obviously potential for conflict of interest if the DDA is largely composed of business members who do not live in the city. There is also a conflict of interest between business owners and the interests of residents who see South Haven not as a business opportunity but as home. This becomes very apparant when the topic of advertising comes up. We need to maintain the proper balance between business and resident's interests when considering DDA proposals.
I have nothing against DDA or its members. They work hard and I respect them. There are some circumstances when DDA-type government programs can benefit a community but I am not sure these circumstances exist in South Haven today.
In summary, here is what I would like City Council to do:
Actively encourage the formation of the Development Citizens Council and provide them the mandated opportunity to review the DDA's proposals before they come to City Council.
The Citizen's Council should be able to make their own proposals
to City Council about what to do with DDA funds.
Publicly review the responsibilities of the DDA. Determine which are appropriate. Should they be scaled back?
Look at the DDA budget. Could the funds be better spent? Could taxes be reduced or tax increases delayed?
Thank you
Posted by Elaine at 04:34 PM | Comments (0)
January 18, 2005
City Council Listens and Acts Cautiously!
It makes me proud to be able to write that headline!
Last night the City Council listened intently to voices calling for more time and serious investigation before they set a public hearing to grant DDA the power to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on advertising and marketing.
The hearing was postponed indefinitely. Councilman Tim Stegman was uncharacteristically chatty when explaining his vote: the powers are very broad, the money is very big, the plan is very sketchy...we need more detail. Gotta love it.
In the meantime, City Manager Kevin Anderson is going full steam ahead
introducing plans to make South Haven a high rise city. Amazing architectural drawings are being shown around for 5-7 story condo developments of extreme density for the Wells/Dunkley area AND for the immediate downtown where the Michigan Theatre is. None of this meets the zoning ordinance codes, but...so?
It will be a heady time at the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings for many years. Let's hope the ZBA folks love the quaint nature of this community and hang tough on this type of land development.
There is also talk of DDA building a parking garage. A *parking garage*?????? (Yah, in case you didn't notice the hordes of people desperately looking for a parking spot....maybe 2-6 days annually?)
Methinks much of what is being discussed, including the repaving
of Quaker Street, new sidewalks there and the disappearance of the
parking lot next to the Michigan Theatre...maybe, just maybe is a concession to entice the very same developers. Not to mention that DDA coffers suck up any/all the new tax revenue generated by such a monster condo development.
They are selling off our town, erecting blight and ruinous development...and we don't even see the tax benefits go into the general fund/city budget monitored by elected officials and subject to public input. It goes to 7 downtown businesspeople who make the cash grab on the first Wednesday of every month at noon. The DDA goliath.
It's time to get a vision of the future. To accomplish that dream we need to rein in the DDA. Please write to the paper and your councilperson and show up at meetings to support this effort.
Posted by Elaine at 09:24 AM | Comments (0)
January 07, 2005
DDA Annexed Areas Illegal?
A Letter to City Council:
Please take the time to read this article from the Traverse City newspaper which reports why a large part of that city's DDA (in the Grand Traverse Township) withdrew from their DDA.
Could this happen here?
I have linked the article for you, below.
A few years ago the South Haven DDA annexed large portions of the city into the district. These annexed portions on the North Shore Drive peninsula and north riverfront are largely residential and ripe as plums for inevitable private development.
It seems clear that the gerrymandered addition of this territory to the DDA did NOT meet the law's standard (downtown and commercial areas) nor was this area scarred by blight....but that it
was annexed to insure the capture of a tax windfall from prime waterfront development.
I think it's important to note that the lawyer involved is quoted as saying:"...the (area) doesn't meet state criteria for a DDA. It's supposed to include an area of property value deterioration and be centered in an existing business district. They want to create an immense slush fund to be operated by an oligarchy of a few citizens."
It seems clear that South Haven's DDA will have enormous tax revenues in their budget in the next decade(s).
PLEASE do not endorse their upcoming request to use those taxes for marketing and advertising.
PLEASE insist that they continue to use these taxes for parks, streetscape improvements, renovation of blighted and deteriorated buildings, infrastructure repair and other duties in the spirit of their charter.
Thank you for taking into consideration all the citizens of South Haven, not just a few downtown business owners. I think DDA has value and would not want to see a movement by angry residential property owners to withdraw from the DDA district.
These tax dollars should be spent for the benefit of all.
Here's the article:
http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/oct/21acme.htm
You may also be interested in a Detroit News article which
claims that a judge cited the DDA state law as unconstitutional
in December, 2004:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nngrosseile/0412/29/r03-44177.htm
Posted by Elaine at 03:59 PM | Comments (0)
January 06, 2005
Rules? There are RULES?
Gosh, according to the city's website there is a building ordinance that sets in stone nearly every aspect of a property development, from the lowliest family tool shed to the biggest multiple family development to massive industrial construction. I know this because I (and many others) have been scrupulously held to these standards for the last 20 years of construction of business and home in South Haven. There are rules.
Granted, these ordinances have been hugely overhauled in the last year and now are missing 80% of the teeth they used to have....but they still protect our living, shopping and working zones by setting minimum standards for construction.
On Thursday of this week The Planning Commission will do a preliminary site plan review for a proposed condo development on Wells Street, (which is in the DDA district). Proposed height is 5 stories (ordinance limit is 2-1/2 stories), and density is 35 dwelling units per acre with 250 square feet of open space per unit (ordinance limit is 7 units per acre at 720 square feet open space per unit, or 3,600 square feet of open space per unit at 35 units per acre; this means 2.89 acres of every acre must be open space). The review is preliminary because the City staff knows there are issues.
That is not to be confused with a City Council workshop next Monday night, when Steve Neumer will present a proposal involving Black River Park (which also is in the DDA district). His plan, proposed at a Council meeting last month, is for the city to buy his property way up the river and move the boat launch. Mr. Neumer is the same gentleman who just bought Indiana School after presenting the School Board with a development proposal that violates the density, height, and open space requirements in the Zoning Ordinance (sound familiar?). City Council thought the Planning & Parks Commissions should get involved early on, which is a hopeful sign.
Rules? We'll see.
Posted by Elaine at 09:53 AM | Comments (0)
DDA Goes Forward with *The Plan*
At the 1-5-05 meeting the DDA unanimously moved to ratify the proposed amendment to redefine their duties. This amendment requests that the DDA's powers be morphed (if not transmogrified) far beyond their original mission which is to fight blight in the district through property and street/infrastructure improvements.
Now this small group of downtown businesspeople wants to spend nearly
$2 million (yes, the amount has been doubled since last month's report)of South Haven tax dollars on MARKETING.
About 20 concerned citizens including, to their credit, almost every
City Council member, showed up at the meeting. (This is NOT easy to do, as noon is usually when people are at work!) Kevin Anderson, City Manager, presented a nice opening commercial statement complete with overhead projector graphics to show everyone the mission and accomplishments of the DDA. Everyone in the audience raised significant objections to the vague amendment that asks for the huge
funds but gives scant detail on the actual use of these monies.
The plan passed with little discussion and no nay votes.
What we DO know is that they want to spend $300,000 on a huge cluster of "sails" around a city logo billboard on the I196 exit 20 ramp.
The other $1 1/2 million is for other unspecified marketing plans.
Furthermore, the gerrymandered map of DDA tax capture district now
(since 2000) includes very large area outside the downtown.
It grabs up every area with the possible promise of significant development, including residential areas of North Shore Drive from Dyckman south to the river and the entire river area north to Baseline Road. Even two single family residences on the corner of North Shore Drive and Dyckman, on the lakeside, are included, as DDA anticipates their future slide (and tax bonanza) into Condoland. Increased tax dollars that come from development in this convoluted mapping goes to the DDA coffers. The numbers will be staggering. It will be a huge slush fund of tax dollars with shadowy accountability and uneven distribution even with the existing mission of DDA.
And they want to spend it on MARKETING. This is an outrage, nothing less. The DDA unflinchingly believes that "what's good for our businesses is good for South Haven". While I agree with that fully, I think the marketing and advertising for their businesses should be done BY the businesses, BY the Chamber of Commerce and BY the South Haven Visitor's Bureau, not with our property tax dollars. With huge assessments going to homeowners in the path of sewer and street improvements, 3 school millage increases, one street paving millage and a Headley rollback tax increase in the last 3 years, I expect our enormous tax burden to be used for brick and mortar city improvements,
not to advertise South Haven to highway tourists and direct them to downtown businesses.
If we build a beautiful city, they will come.
If downtown businesses stay open in the winter...they will come.
If housing is affordable...they will come.
If there are industrial and professional jobs with living wages...they will come.
If the water, sewer, electrical and gas is affordable..they will come.
If property taxes are affordable and used to improve the city...they will come.
This question will come before city council and the public forum in the next two months,slated to be passed into law in March. 3/4 of the city's population is gone for the winter. Those of us still here must fight this unconscionable expansion of DDA's powers to include huge tax expenditures for marketing and advertising.
Posted by Elaine at 07:08 AM | Comments (0)