June 26, 2005
Council can WAIVE the law
No matter how the new PUD ordinance is fashioned, as long as it provides City Council the option to toss out Planning Commission approval/disapproval and the wishes of citizens by waiving any or all portions of the ordinance any time they want, it's a moot law.
A South Haven friend sent me this today:
"The Zoning Ordinance provides a legal means for City Council to waive zoning provisions for PUDs, and they used it on the Wells Street project. I believe their rationale was bogus, but they documented it as required. The more troublesome issue is when they ignore a law by omission, or by commission as when Bill Bradley says it's a bad law and Thomas Jefferson told him to ignore it. I believe civil disobedience (which this might be called) is proper when confronted with bad laws, but persons practicing it must be willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions. Martin Luther King, Jr. discussed it well in his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail". I don't believe troublesome City Council members have any intention of inviting or accepting consequences. They operate on the "So sue us" principle. As long as nobody formally challenges their actions, they will persist. I think it'll take a trip or two to Circuit Court and/or the ballot box before things change."
Posted by Elaine at 07:11 AM | Comments (3)
June 23, 2005
PUD Ordinance Rewrite
Last evening the Planning Commission met in a workshop to hammer out changes to the proposed ordinance governing PUDs. The public Hearing is in July. Dorothy Appleyard, who attends every meeting South Haven has, was present and sends me this today:
To Kevin Anderson, Planning Commission and Kathy Staton, Planning Administrator:
Last night was another interesting night with the Planning Commission. While I have a great deal of respect for so many of the members of that Commission, the process doesn't work!
I was feeling somewhat ashamed of myself for not being more involved in the Master Plan Review process, but I realize now that it probably would have made no difference.
Last night the members of the public who attended the meeting spent the same 3 1/2 hours at the meeting that the Commission members and staff spent there, but we were not provided with copies of the proposed changes to the ordinance so it was impossible to follow. We weren't allowed to ask questions and certainly not allowed any input.
I believe the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance represent a major change in the types of development that will be permitted in this City. I think I understood Kathy to say that the notice for the public hearing has already gone to the newspaper. How is the public supposed to get the information they need in time to make valid comments at a public hearing? The final changes are not complete and there will be no opportunity for public discussion. Once again, a specific development is the tail wagging the dog, and the people of the community will be left out of the process.
I think it will be a huge mistake not to take the time to build concensus on an important change that will affect the community for generations. When Lynn Cheeseman made the comment that she thought the community felt some of these projects were "rammed down their throats", I wanted to jump across the table and hug her! City Council and Staff seem to view public input is an impediment to progress. Please do not underestimate the importance of public acceptance of these changes.
It's time to include the public in the decision making process in a meaningful way!
Dorothy Appleyard
Posted by Elaine at 10:09 AM | Comments (0)
June 11, 2005
Does this seem right to YOU?
Yesterday I found out that a good friend of mine who is a teacher at South Haven schools was pink-slipped. We are laying off teachers. Yes, after how many millage proposals this faithful town passed in the last few years? We are laying off teachers, still.
The DDA captures between $300,000 and $400,000 annually in school taxes.
Yes, from South Haven city schools, Van Buren county schools, state schools and Lake Michigan College.
All this brou-ha-ha over the do-or-die importance of getting $400,000 for Indiana School, and the DDA absconds with nearly that much *annually* from school property taxes.
Though the state is supposed to reimburse these captured taxes dollar for dollar, audits show that there are shortfalls. This year the audit from LDFA tax capture of school funds has a shortfall of about $110,000. (Is that about a teacher and a half or so?) I don't know what the DDA audit shows.
This year, the TOTAL property tax capture going directly to DDA is $895,000. The *projected* tax revenue capture for DDA for the rest of the decade rises to $1 million+ per year. And that's considered a
conservative estimate, with the unknowns being the captured taxes generated by the massive PUDs planned.
No citizen has ever voted for these dollars to go this way.
The other entities getting short-changed out of the general fund are street repairs, senior services, the library, the hospital and drug enforcement. Taxes captured from the county schools and college also are lost to them.
While the DDA does serve some valuable projects to revitalize the downtown, other choices made by its Board seem self-serving to private merchant properties. Certainly the proposal to spend millions on billboards and media marketing is outrageous. And certainly tearing out mature evergreen screen and paving the rear portion of Dyckman Park to expose visions of parking lots and stores is not in the interest of citizens who love the beauty of our town.
Recently the DDA voted DOWN a proposal to donate for landscaping at The South Haven Center for the Arts. They further voted down a proposal to simply *study* the possibility of donating money to landscape the Center for Arts. This is not connected to the love of green space, the education of children or the benefit of the community.
The DDA is mandated by state law to be downtown, commercial and "blighted". The theory is that investment and work is supposed to pay off in *earned* future earnings through TIF for the DDA. The 2001 annexation to the DDA TIF district of huge portions of prime residential development properties on the lake and the river is designed to take tax dollars with little or nothing invested in earning them. It's a rip-off.
Demands on city services will increase as these huge condo developments are built, but the millions of tax dollars generated are diverted to the whim of 8 DDA Board members and the City Council's reliable rubber stamp.
Does this seem right to you?
Posted by Elaine at 07:01 AM | Comments (0)
Anyone need a job?
The Chamber of Commerce website refers interested prospective businesses to the South Haven Economic Development Office. The city website does not show any such office although it used to exist. A word search for "economic development" turns up the DDA, the Community Development Plan, and several "development" hits in the Zoning Ordinance, but NOTHING about trying to attract year-round employers even though we have three industrial parks. I know it's hard find such employers these days, but it's even harder if you don't look.
Posted by Elaine at 06:55 AM | Comments (2)
Postmortom
Don Bemis writes to City Council and Planning Commission. Check out Larry King's testy, dismissive retort.
From Don:
During the discussion of a City Council motion to send the Wells Street project back to Planning Commission for a definite recommendation on allowable height, Janet Fahs said the Planning Commission had wanted to send the Wells Street proposal to City Council without a recommendation.
That is not correct. A motion to that effect was made, seconded, and voted upon, but it failed. The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to send the project to City Council with a negative recommendation.
There was much discussion during the City Council meeting about whether approval of the Wells Street project would set a precedent. Several people said no. The City Manager said in his report to Council, "PUD's are intended to be non-precedent setting." Then the City Council granted a waiver on height, based on the rationale that higher buildings had been approved for the area in 1983. In other words, City Council relied upon the precedent of a PUD that was never built! If this doesn't prove that a PUD will set a precedent, nothing does.
Speaking of the 1983 precedent, I did not hear City Council discuss that the area was zoned differently in 1983. I also seem to recall that the 3-1/2 story height restriction was added to the Zoning Ordinance in reaction to high rises that could not be denied but were never built, in order to prevent similar future efforts. If I am correct, high rise project approval is not a valid precedent for ignoring ordinance height limits.
The developer's spokesman said that other buildings in South Haven are five stories high. Nobody challenged his statement. No building in South Haven is taller than four stories as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
City staff has submitted a proposed rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance PUD section. Among other changes, revisions would eliminate height as a basis for project disapproval, reduce open space requirements, allow more commercial uses in PUDs in residential zones, increase dwelling density, and take certain decisions out of Planning Commission hands. The Planning Commission will discuss the proposal in a workshop later this month, and there will be a public hearing at the July 7 meeting. Before the public has had an opportunity to comment on proposed changes, and before the Planning Commission has begun to discuss them, the City Council granted waivers that essentially told the Planning Commission that PUD ordinance revisions had better allow the scope of project approved Monday night. Consider, for example, if the Planning Commission recommended a maximum height of five stories for the Celery Pond area. Imagine City Council approving it.
Then suppose a developer brings in a plan with the world's ugliest six-story motel, to go next door to 815 Wells Street. Picture the happy lawyers if the City denies the application because it exceeds ordinance height limits.
From Larry:
Don,
Thank you for the comments. The decision on 815 Wells Street has been made. Let's move on.
You've got some proposed changes coming before planning commission.
Discuss and debate them there, and then let me know your decisions and
rational. I need that type of feedback and direction.
It appears city council has the intention of allowing height and density increases suggested by the Master Plan. If planning commission needs more resources to work through those changes and strengthen the non-precedent portion of our puds, then let me know.
Larry King
Posted by Elaine at 06:51 AM | Comments (0)
June 01, 2005
Stacking the Deck and Following the Money Trail
It seems clear that Mayor Dale Lewis is illegal as a voting Board of Director member of the DDA. Other DDA Directors may be illegal as well.
The By-Laws for the Downtown Development Authority specifically stipulates that a DDA Board of Directors member cannot be a county commissioner, school board member or "a member of the governing body of the municipality in which the district is located".
See the city website/ Document Center/ DDA/ DDA miscellaneous files/
DDA Bylaws/ Page 4/ Board of Directors. Be advised that Kevin Anderson is the CEO of the city (see bio on city website), not The Mayor. Kevin Anderson is the mandated head of DDA.
Furthermore, the DDA Board also includes Martha Kay Nelson and Barbara Kreuzer, both who also are appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Because ZBA can waive law, they may also qualify as "members of the governing body of the municipality" and may be illegal as DDA Board members.
Certainly it is no coincidence that the huge PUD developments that are before Planning Commission and Council, not to mention the proposed ordinance amendment that lifts restrictions on height, density and green space for PUDs, are potential windfalls of TIF funding for the DDA. With Nelson and Kreuzer on ZBA, in addition to the Mayor's son who is on the ZBA, the DDA potentially controls 3 votes in the judicial body hearing appeals of decisions in which the DDA has an interest.
In my opinion, the intention of this bylaw is to prohibit just this possibility, among other things.
At the last Council meeting Arnie Zuckerman of Lakeshore Paint and Glass was outvoted for a DDA Board seat by The City Council in favor of Barbara Kreuzer. Why?
Posted by Elaine at 11:08 AM | Comments (3)