August 26, 2005
Plant Closing: Show me the money!
Here's a news item that somehow got totally missed by The South Haven Tribune and The Herald Palladium. (Are we so obsessed with photos of children with blueberry pie on their face that we can't write about a city with egg on its face?)
"SOUTH HAVEN (NEWS 3) - Layoffs have started at a West Michigan automotive supplier - and more are likely on the way.
Clarion Technologies is consolidating its four West Michigan plants, including the South Haven facility.
The auto part manufacturer employed more than 400 people at one point. About 180 have worked at the South Haven plant, which is now down to fewer than three dozen.
Plant manager Joe Deckert says the company is looking to consolidate its four West Michigan plants into two. Despite tax breaks from the city, the company may still leave South Haven.
Deckert says additional layoffs will probably happen."
OK, it's not the city's fault that companies go under/out. However, we surely gave this company significant tax breaks.
Some communities have taken recourse against companies that received tax breaks & left anyway. This company still has resources outside South haven. Shouldn't the city have something in the tax abatement contract that gets our tax coffers reimbursed?
And while we're speaking of jobs: will it be an election issue that there is no place to work in South Haven? Maybe we can do laundry for the condo buyers.
Posted by Elaine at 08:22 AM | Comments (0)
August 19, 2005
Why We Need to Take the Time
There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday on condo development. It said that Chicago had over 8,000 condos on the drawing board and that sales and price increases were slowing.
Chicago at 8,000 and South Haven at 1,000???? WOW.
When the idea of the building moratorium first came up, I admit that I was skeptical. I liked the idea of an assessment of the entire development situation. But I also believed that the moratorium might just be a tool to stifle and thwart the process...itelf a way to slow things down enough to assess the entire situation. As much as I admired the cleverness of this, I was skeptical about the honesty of this.
After much thought, I am now convinced that the moratorium idea is a good idea. Here's why:
The structure of the master plan and zoning ordinance calls for a project by project review, not an overall consideration of the effect on the entire community. If a particular project meets the technical requirements, it's required that Planning Commission approve it. It's a bit like ordering everything on the menu; each individual item may be fine, but the cumulative effect could be a disaster. It remains inportant to see the forest through the trees.
The only way to consider the cumulative effect is to gather data, get expert opinions and community input and based on that, make whatever changes appear to be needed to the master plan and zoning ordinance.
The master plan itself calls for this kind of constant review and revision.You don't have to have a moratorium on certain types of development in order to do this but it makes sense to hold off approving projects in the meantime. Especially in view of this huge
development surge and the passions in the community.
I also think that the statement on Page 144 of the Master Plan addresses the issue that each project should be viewed in the context of the entire city, I quote:
"As new development occurs on vacant land and on land abutting City limits, special efforts should be taken to place each project in the CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY AND NOT VIEW IT AS AN ISOLATED ELEMENT. Each new development should blend with the natural and built environment around it, be linked to it in safe and convenient ways and contribute to the unique small town character of South Haven that is widely recognized and enjoyed by so many".
What harm would a moratorium do to the community? Even if no changes are made as a result, it would just delay project approvals for less than a year. This doesn't mean that developers will go away.
If significant changes are agreed upon the community will certainly benefit. Even if changes are NOT agreed upon the community will benefit by coming together to make peace.
If a study is undertaken, with or without a moratorium, care needs to be taken to have quality input. There are clearly some biases in city staff. How could there not be? Naturally, they want to keep their jobs and they want to show themselves in the most positive light.
This is not conducive to an absolutely honest assessment.
Finally, Bill Bradley should resign from the planning commission. He is entitled to his views but he doesn't believe in the concept of zoning and planning which is the mission of the planning commission.
I don't think anyone would be elected to the board of directors of a manufacturing company who was philosophically opposed to the product the company was making and was dedicated to destroying the company.
I am fond of Bill personally, but it is a maddening waste of time to have him thwarting the process at Planning Commission meetings. Everyone is well versed in his philosophy and no positive influence can be contributed by him any longer.
At the September 1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting I will be recommending that City Council consider the morotorium.
Posted by Elaine at 07:45 AM | Comments (16)
August 05, 2005
Water Water Everywhere, but....
Robert Baker sends me this from his blog:
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
South Haven City Commish
Went to city Hall [August 1st 7 pm] and registered my concerns with the costs that we are now paying (for water/sewer) and check on processes being used to justify the high costs we pay the city without getting any return for our buck.
I noted we have no real input since our rep is allowed to attend the Board of Public works meetings, but he has no vote at all.
We are paying 71 cents per day conpared to other cities of Portage. Kentwwod, Wyoming and Ionia where they pay an average of 48 cents and manage to run a good system and still pocket 14% to replenish their systems and expand them as needed. Why we agreed to allow the city to take advantage of us is beyond me, but I do feel that Kevin has found a honey hole for revenue and he will not let go of it til we threaten to call the dept of state treasury for a audit. Water and sewer is not suposed to be a system to build revenue, political clout or pressure against its member users and we have the right to ask the city to show just cause for not sharing its windfall monies. This past year they had a three hundred thousand dollar surplus, but I believe it was only monies they could not hide with the present Anderson arithmetic systems and there is much more there.
In the last PW meetings Mr. Marvin "Noheart" told the board that "Kevin does not provide spread sheets for that board to revue and they could go to the internet to view what's published" Now that to me is rude, pushy and down right double talk from a city treasurer and that should never happen. I"m not part of that system and the people of So. H. need to solve that one, but believe me ,I shall ride this one til it dies in the arms of Kevin A. and me pullin the other way[ old bulldog] Go to/ or call Casco Twp offices and ask them to get busy on this one or soon the city of S.H. will be the mega provider with mega prices we can't stop or control. NUF SAID!
Posted by Elaine at 08:31 AM | Comments (0)
August 04, 2005
Citizens Request a Moratorium, "Disappoint" The Mayor
This week's city council meeting showcased an awkwardly orchestrated response...more like a swat of dismissal...to citizens asking the city for a 90 day moratorium on PUD development until infrastructure issues can be studied.
Though not put on the agenda for discussion, a parade of city staff was asked to respond to questions, especially about water capacity, under the guise of "Mayor's comments" at the end of the meeting. The Mayor represented himself as "disappointed" with the moratorium request. I daresay citizens were just as disappointed to be blown off so unceremoniously and hope to "disappoint" this Mayor once again at the November election.
On the issue of moratoria, please see this link:
http://www.cdtoolbox.org/development_issues/000193.html
This article is useful to understand the process for possible moratoria. Here is information about how municipalities can and do, indeed, enact temporary development controls like that proposed in the 90 day moratorium request.
It begins with this statement:
"Development moratoria allow communities to place a temporary halt on new development so that local officials can examine the impact of proposed development and put measures in place to manage it."
It continues to discuss the legal ramifications:
"Moratoria lasting up to two years have been upheld by the courts...."
It discusses legally defensible guidelines.
Citizens have asked for consideration of this moratorium and I believe that city planners and City Council should respond respectfully by considering the issue.
Posted by Elaine at 04:32 PM | Comments (6)
August 03, 2005
DON'T Light Up *MY* Life, thanks anyway
Dear City Council,
This letter comes far in advance of next year's 4th of July celebration. Perhaps it might be wise to consider the Light up the Lake Fireworks, scheduled for July 2, 2006, long before fundraising and the visitor's calendar is undertaken.
This event is sponsored by merchants, primarily COZY radio, but the cost of the night goes far beyond the investment for the fireworks.
The public safety teams, including assistance from county and state police, city cleanup crews and individual property owners financing repairs from vandalism cost our city a great deal of money and grief.
This is NOT a family affair, at least on the North side of town. It bears no resemblance to the family fun of the annual parade or Art Fair, held the same weekend. The enormous crowd of an estimated 70,000 people, questionable to manage whatever its profile on the small northside peninsula, is arguably 80% between the ages of 15 and 25.
The 20 minutes of fireworks are sandwiched on either side by 8 hours of drunkenness, mostly underage, drunk driving, public urination, vandalism and littering. There is also the problem of illegal fireworks in the crowds, creating great public danger. These incidents are well documented. Significant opposition to this event was voiced at the Ward 3 Town Hall Meeting.
I hope the City Council will spend some time researching the *return on investment * of this event. A determination of actual public costs incurred might provoke some thoughts on where that investment might
be applied for a more desirable public event/festival.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Elaine Herbert
Response from Councilman Bradley:
Elaine,
Glad to see that you support finding out what it really costs city government (really the taxpayers) for this activity.
Of course, the same thing is true for all activities which involve city government, but we have to start somewhere. I am a firm believer that those who benefit from any activity should be the ones who pay the cost of that activity.
You may recall that a couple of months ago, using the "we have to start somewhere" idea, I introduced and the council supported a motion to require the City Manager to keep track of a couple of relatively minor activities, so we could begin to get an idea what our costs actually were. I haven't seen a report yet on either one, but I should remind the City Manager about it at our next council meeting.
Bill Bradley
Posted by Elaine at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)