September 22, 2005
City Officials Seek to Pass the Buck...er, I mean, CLARIFY
In the Kazoo Gazette:
South Haven officials seek to clarify proposal to suspend development
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
bwalters@kalamazoogazette.com 388-8563
SOUTH HAVEN -- Stopping short of embracing a proposed nine-month moratorium on residential development but keeping it alive, the City Council voted 6-1 Monday to send it back to the Planning Commission for more specific information.
The six votes included the president of the South Haven Chamber of Commerce, Larry King, who said the original moratorium proposal was ``vague, hard to measure and so could not be upheld in a court of law. But if they pin it down, I will support a moratorium.''
Behind the move is unrest over the area's exploding development. This year, nearly 900 homes and condominiums are under construction, approved for construction or nearly through the approval stage, compared to 25 in a typical year through the 1990s. The Planning Commission recommended this month that the City Council enact a moratorium on new submissions for developments to give the community time to study development's impact on ``city infrastructure, city finances, general quality of life ... and the environment.''
Most of the two dozen residents who attended the council meeting Monday agreed.
``I'm not against development,'' said Dick Brunvand, who works in administration and marketing for the construction trades. Some developers, though, are ``taking advantage'' of the city staff and of the state Department of Environmental Quality, he said. Plans for developments such as The Preserve at Woodland Harbor, a $100 million housing development and marina approved last month, are too often ``rushed through'' the approval process by the city, even when there are environmental concerns, he said.
A DEQ letter to the Chicago developer of Woodland Harbor, dated June 30, shows that mercury, arsenic, lead and other compounds date back from the site's use as an orchard where pesticides were used and later as a dump for sludge dredged from the river. The letter details what the developer plans to do to clean up the chemicals, but the DEQ states that many of the developer's proposals are not adequate.
After Monday's meeting, City Manager Kevin Anderson said the DEQ report is typical of its process of working with a developer in showing what kinds of testing and cleanup are needed.
But to Brunvand and others, the council's approval of the Woodland project was hasty and an example of why the city needs to pause with a moratorium on new applications for development before entering into another building phase.
The resolution, written by council member David Pahl, asks the Planning Commission for ``a statement describing exactly what is covered by the proposed moratorium, findings of fact, statistical or anecdotal data to support the need for the proposed moratorium.''
The resolution also calls on the Planning Commission to decide what parts of the master plan, zoning ordinance and utility-extension policies will be affected by the moratorium, and to look into the effect of regional planning and zoning with neighboring communities.
Finally, the resolution asks for ``the intended outcomes of the proposed moratorium, including a rationale as to why these outcomes could not be achieved without a moratorium.''
Two former mayors, Glenn Sperry and Betty Davis, have come forward to support a moratorium. The original proposal was written by Sperry. On Monday, Davis said the resolution to clarify it would be a ``win-win'' solution for residents and the council and a chance to ``involve citizens'' in the process of defining their city's future.
Pastor Jeffrey Dick, of First Congregational Church in South Haven, did not speak directly about the issue of the moratorium, but he was among several who spoke to economic problems in the area. The food bank at his church is in higher demand, he said, not from itinerant strangers but by ``people whose names I know, parents of the kids my children go to school with.''
Council member Janet Fahs cast the single vote against keeping the moratorium idea alive. ``It's so vague,'' she said. ``The real points of contention,'' which she said are building height and density, ``aren't even listed in the moratorium.
``Most of the issues listed in it we have dealt with, over and over,'' she said after the meeting.
Posted by Elaine at September 22, 2005 08:24 AM
Comments
A friend sends me this:
I think that the motion Monday night was designed (perhaps by legal counsel) to delay acting on the moratorium proposal. It is an entirely unreasonable workload to put on the planning commission and the council surely knows that such a report couldn't be generated for many months. If the council members were serious, they should give the city manager instructions to use staff and outside consultants, if necessay, to prepare a full report for the council. We don't know exactly what the city attorney's opinion was and we don't know what instructions he was given. It is perfectly clear that moratoriums are valid or can be questionable depending on the circumstances and the terms of the moratorium. I have no doubt that a valid moratorium can be established in South Haven on the development issues. The moratorium is really a subissue of the whole development issue. All the moratorium does is preserve the status quo while the studies continue. I think that the planning commission should simply say that it is going to study the development issue in the way it thinks best and feel free to ask the city manager to meet with it to plan the use of staff and consultants. At the same time, the public should be made aware that it appears that the council is unwilling to deal with the issue in a serious manner.
Posted by: Elaine at September 22, 2005 10:48 AM
The Planning Commission didn't do a thing other than pass along a memo written by the South Haven Democratic Club to City Council. They didn't ask for basic information, state what they intended to study, or what they wanted to change. The planning commission is dysfunctional, why should development be stopped so the bubbleheads can talk about their opinions and get nothing done.
The moratorium is only a political move by the South Haven Democratic Club and Parks Commission to make the current mayor look bad so they can get their candidate elected. Oh, well, thats politics, you have to expect the lies and hysteria. Let the witch hunt continue.
Posted by: T Hayward at September 22, 2005 04:52 PM
As President of the South Haven Democratic Club I can assure you that we gave nothing to the Planning Commission to pass on. The Democratic Club hasn't met since June which was well before the moratorium issue emerged. Any member of the Parks Commission could tell you that we have no current business in common with the Planning Commission and didn't "pass on" anything to them.
Everyone who supports the moratorium knows that development in South Haven will happen. The moratorium would give our whole community some time to consider what the impact of several hundred new units would be. The City asks for public input and this would be an appropriate, time limited way for this to be done thoroughly. The moratorium is absolutely legal. John Roberts, the likely new Chief Justice argued successfully that a moratorium did not place an undue burden on property owners and he was talking about a moratorium of 30 years duration which is nothing like the one proposed here.
Regarding the mayoral race - it is non partisan and the challenger, Dorothy Appleyard, has supporters who are Democrats, Republicans, Greens and those with other party or no party affiliation. The basis of her campaign is to research the issues, to get as much background as possible, to listen to a variety of opinions and to clearly articulate her concerns and to encourage healthy compromise whenever possible. She does not intend to or need to "make the current mayor look bad."
Posted by: Julie Ludwig at September 23, 2005 12:15 AM
Julie, thanks for that clarification.
T. Hayward, whoever you are at your fake email address, thanks for participating but we do prefer the courtesy and courage of speaking with your identity revealed.
Posted by: Elaine at September 23, 2005 07:46 AM
Excuse me, but this Mayor Lewis is perfectly able to make HIMSELF look bad. He is forgetful, rude, bossy, a list of bad qualities too long to list here. Ms. Appleyard will bring a balanced and respectful tone to the office, among other fine qualities.
The moratorium was the brainchild of Mr. Glenn Sperry, a local attorney and former Mayor himself.
It has no party affiliation that I am aware of. I think the persons speaking in favor of it and the Planning Commission members are caring, informed and brave to fight this nasty city government.
Posted by: Winnie at September 23, 2005 09:54 AM
A friend sent me this:
Council did an okay job with the moratorium question. The city attorney’s opinion that the moratorium motion as made by the planning commission wouldn’t hold up in court seems to confirm that the PC has some members with political and personal agendas they place above the legalities of their decisions. You should have ended the moratorium question at council and admonished the PC for putting the taxpayers of the city in jeopardy. But that would have only fed the flames. Given the political climate you did okay by sending it back with instructions for them to get specific.
I think as the city elections get closer you’ll see more citizens comment on their distaste for the Appleyard Democratic Garden Club’s actions over the past year. You stay focused on doing what’s right for the city and communicating good information. Don’t play their games, we are smart enough to read through them.
Hang in there and good luck,
Posted by: Larry at September 23, 2005 10:25 AM
Larry, can you explain why you shared this letter?
When I occasionally share some information "from a friend" it is because I believe has information that is at least interesting and pertinent. This letter you have shared is primarily namecalling and sycophancy.
The moratorium is surely legally defensible. If Glenn Sperry's testimony on the subject isn't good enough for you, check out the internet on the subject. The city's lawyer also knows and says this. The vague warning about legality is simply what you and the Council will hang your collective hats on when asked to act.
Posted by: Elaine at September 23, 2005 03:35 PM
The planning commission doesn't need a consultant, it needs an exorcist.
Posted by: T Hayward at September 24, 2005 11:52 AM
Elaine,
Sorry for posting the email from a friend.
I didn't know it was against the rules or that it had to meet your personal criteria of interesting and pertinent. I personally thought it was interesting and pertinent to the comments already made as it shows a growing dislike of the political games being played. Should I email my "a friend sent this" for your approval prior to posting?
Larry
Posted by: Larry at September 24, 2005 01:54 PM
I am interested in what constitutes "political games". As I said above the moratorium has nothing to do with the Democratic Club here in South Haven, but some seem determined to persist in that opinion. Believe me I wish the Democratic Club had the power to mobilize this much dissent - but we don't (yet).
The British have a term "the loyal opposition" which means that a group has allegiance to a social community or government, but sees the current direction as deeply flawed. People of many different political stripes now see themselves as the loyal opposition as they oppose the current juggernaut of conventional development policy.
I'm interested in the idea that citizens suggesting a creative response to commercial pressures is a "game."
Is the only response not seen as a "game" one that accepts without question the selling of our City to the highest bidder? Are we really sure we can't do better than this? How many of us would want to live downstream from the exposed hill that currently constitutes the Sherman Hills project? Which Council members would volunteer to move their families to the streets adjacent to the old Everett piano factory where there is now constant noise and dust? Neighborhood residents now find their cars are covered with dust. Those with family gardens wonder if their vegetables are safe to eat after they've had concrete - and who knows what other kind - of dust on them for days? This is the what we have on the site of a development approved by City Council. Developers should know that here in South Haven the philosophy of "It's easier to say I'm sorry than to ask permission" doesn't wash. Surely we can be more savvy as a city than we have been up to now. We need time and the collective will to create a community vision for the future.
Posted by: Julie Ludwig at September 24, 2005 05:07 PM
Julie,
A political game is where an individual utilizes the public's emotions and fears along with a heavy dose of their own highly charged language to further either their own personal political position or cause. Facts are rarily used nor is consensus building and discussion encouraged. Inflammatory language and ideas is the norm
This particular blog thread is a fantastic example of a political game. And probably the entire Our Town blog, although I would want to go back and look at all the threads before posting that opinion.
In reality here's where we are at with the moritorium question.
A citizen, Glenn Sperry, submitted a memo to Planning Commission requesting they consider a temporary halting of development in order to understand the impact of that development on the community.
Sounds good, so the Planning Commission takes public comment on the idea and they vote to send it on to City Council with a recommendation to approve a moritorium.
City Council knows the question is coming to them so they publicly direct the city manager to have the city attorney review the request. Not out of the oridinary when it comes to planning and zoning as all proposed ordinances get a review by the attorney. And a moritorium is an ordinance.
The city attorney opinion states that the moritorium motion as written would probably not be upheld in court. He writes a 4 page letter giving background to his reasoning and what should be addressed.
After public input, council votes to send it back to planning commission to have them address the concerns expressed by the city attorney.
Rather than work to identify the specifics needed to write a moritorium ordinance, or encourage open discussion on exactly what we want to accomplish, this blog thread is focused on utilizing the issue to continue flaming people's emotions.
Look at your own post and the language/phrasing you utilize: "selling of our city to the highest bidder" or the idea that council members wouldn't move next to the Everett project because they know its poisoning the entire neighborhood. If that isn't playing on fears I don't know what is.
People getting involved in the political process is very good for a community. They can take the easy road of political gamemanship or the harder road of questioning, developing an understanding and utilizing facts to support discussions.
The emails and comments I receive tell me people are getting very tires of the games. The first line of Barbara Walters article says it all "Stopping short of embracing a proposed nine-month moratorium on residential development but keeping it alive, the City Council voted 6-1 Monday to send it back to the Planning Commission for more specific information."
Take that article out of this blog and you'ld think council voted down the request with developers waiting in the wings to destroy our small town charm and atmosphere.
Hope this explains what consititutes political games. IMHO
Larry
Posted by: Larry at September 24, 2005 08:31 PM
Let me get this straight:
(1)Passing on a resident's concern about the quality of the air in her neighborhood and whether the food she grows in her garden is safe to eat because she doesn't know what is in the dust that drifts onto it from the site of development originally approved by the City Council is a "political game".
(2)Pointing out that two developers betrayed the trust of City Council and by extension the citizens of South Haven is a "game."
But dismissing as uninformed the hundreds of signatures on a petition requesting a slow down the rate of development, ignoring the requests of a variety of citizens (including an attorney, two former mayors and an experienced development consultant) to support a moratorium, sending the moratorium back to an already overworked Planning Commission is not a "game".
And "political games" isn't the "highly charged" or "inflammatory language" you disdain?
Larry, in a previous (private) email you said that you suspected that there were a number of things that you thought we might agree on. Let's change the tone of this exchange. Could you suggest one or two things that you suspect that folks who want to take the time to be clear on where we are headed as a community facing rapid development might share with you. Maybe we could start a more constructive dialogue.
Posted by: Julie Ludwig at September 25, 2005 04:18 PM
The diverse citizens who have come forward to be heard-- those opposing highrise buildings in particular--are not playing any game. They are longtime residents, successful business people, property developers, former mayors, former and present Board and Commission members, and elected City Council members. They all have families, work and life concerns that surely preclude them from having the time or inclination to want to play games with you, Larry. While some in your circle may perceive life's work as some kind of "game", those with whom I associate simply act authentically in pursuit of what they are passionate about, politically or otherwise.
Residents are finding their voice because they care a great deal. Their concerns are real and they are not blindly incited by gamesmanship, boredom, herd mentality or fancy rhetoric as you accuse: they are coming forward because they feel the city is making bad decisions. They live and work here and they care about the future livability of their city.
Add to that that their concerns are ridiculed and ignored. Think 600+ names on a petition. Have you read those names on the petition? You should recognize most of them and find that they are respectable; unlikely that they were duped pawns in some sort of "game".
Consensus requires two sides communicating. Seems to me we've been speaking up with the facts as we see them.
And *speaking up* scares most of these residents to death. Perhaps you feel that intimidating them even more will win whatever "game" you think this this.
Whatever, it's juvenile.
Posted by: Elaine at September 25, 2005 05:01 PM
Elaine,
I'm not accusing residents of playing games. I'm saying you are playing games. Just look at your blog and then look me in the eye and tell me your blog is about open and honest dialogue.
Some residents are indeed concerned about speaking their minds at times. I know most have said I was crazy for running for public office. Just look back at your blog posts for how politely you've treated me. Its political games that cause people not to speak their minds.
Julie,
1) Passing along a residents concerns about air quality and asking that her questions get answered is certainly not playing games. That is citizen involvement. Call me with her name and I'll make sure she gets the information she needs. DEQ and the developor are supposed to be monitoring air quality.
Unfortunately that resident's question of air quality got lost in your paragraph. Was it in here somewhere: "Which Council members would volunteer to move their families to the streets adjacent to the old Everett piano factory where there is now constant noise and dust? Neighborhood residents now find their cars are covered with dust. Those with family gardens wonder if their vegetables are safe to eat after they've had concrete - and who knows what other kind - of dust on them for days?
2) Unfortunately all citizens have the potential and some do betray the trust of society. What change to the zoning ordinance would you propose be made so that developers cannot betray the public trust.
I personnaly like the fact that we utilize performance bonds for developers. Which I think is a step in the right direction.
And finally, the planning commission is the body that makes recommendations and provides direction to our professional, hired planners that develop a set of ordinances to guide residents as they build and construct things on their private property.
City council is the body that has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and citizens of the city. Approving a moritorium request that our own attorney says will be challenged and will loose in court would not be meeting that fiduciary responsiblity.
Unfortunately planning commission does have a tremendous amount of work before it. That doesn't give us the excuse to pass bad law or planning commission to not work on the issue. Somehow those that support the moritorium need to find a way to pin down some specifics and present those to planning commission.
Larry
PS: We have many things in common. One is that we care about the community we live in.
Posted by: Larry at September 25, 2005 05:51 PM
This is an open and honest dialogue. I do not delete any entries.
My facts come from city documents, study and participation. Spending countless summer nights
at meetings is neither fun nor a game.
And separating my participation from that of other residents is simply a desire to isolate and intimidate me. That's your game, not mine. I have no more to say on the subject.
Posted by: Elaine at September 25, 2005 06:36 PM