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 08:24 AM | Comments (15)
September 17, 2005
From the "Did You Know?" File
Did you know that the Downtown Development Authority coughs up nearly $60,000 annually for the ice skating rink in the Huron St. Parking lot?
Yes, you probably know that City Council granted a lucrative contract, at no charge, to RUN the rink to a local relative of Mayor Lewis.
But that's your TIF captured property taxes of close to $60,000 PER YEAR that pays for the ice rink.
Yup, that could sure buy a few computers for the library. Among other things.
Y'all get out and SKATE now, ya hear!
Posted by Elaine at 12:47 PM | Comments (1)
September 16, 2005
Letter to the Editor Herald Palladium Today
Pat Gaston waxes poetic in today's Herald Palladium:
When did South Haven hit the jackpot?
Editor,
Who knew?! The city of South Haven is rolling in dough. Last week the city council passed an item funding a 10-foot-wide bike path across the I-196 Phoenix Road overpass, to the tune of $400,000. And it appears that South Haven Township is in the money, too, because the city manager said that the city could depend on the township for between $40,000 and $60,000 of that cost. Hopefully, that means that the township has the funding in place to buy the beach property for a park.
For the record, the Michigan Department of Transportation will be redoing that overpass in the next couple years. The city has an opportunity to put in a 5-foot sidewalk over the highway for approximately $60,000 or a 10-foot sidewalk/bike path for approximately $400,000. In a letter dated July 26 by city staff to the city council, it was noted that MDOT recommended the 5-foot option. The county Road Commission, which funds the maintenance of the trail through the sale of trail passes, is also not keen on the 10-foot sidewalk/bike path plan, as the more connections to the trail, the more difficult it is to collect that money. However, some on the council favored the larger project because they want to "connect" east to west. They reasoned that the highway is a barrier to people going to the college, Wal-Mart, etc. I suggest there already is a wonderful and tranquil connection less than a mile away. It is called the Kal-Haven Trail and it runs under I-196 just to the north, connecting east to west.
So there you have it. Remember this the next time you fall off your bike on the current city streets because of the huge potholes, or the next time you watch some pedestrian or handicapped individual struggle along major streets (think Aylworth or any street in your neighborhood) because there aren't any sidewalks, or your car needs a front-end alignment after traversing the city streets. Remember that Mr. King, Mr. Paull, Ms. Fahs, and Mayor Lewis feel that a bigger priority is to spend $400,000 so that you can ride, not walk, your bike on a sidewalk over the Phoenix overpass. I guess we really are in the chips!
Pat Gaston
South Haven
Posted by Elaine at 09:28 PM | Comments (0)
We must have dreamt it
Check it out....a citizen's letter to the City Council and the Mayor's response:
To whom it may apply! It is an outrage that a citizen of this community was not allowed to speak at your meeting Monday evening!
Janet C. Olson
1 Apache Ct.
South Haven, MI.
Janet,
I'm not aware that anyone was not allowed to speak.
Dale
Posted by Elaine at 09:19 PM | Comments (0)
September 14, 2005
Let's talk *Moratorium*
A friend sends this:
“Somewhere along the line of development we discover who we really are, and then we make our real decision for which we are responsible.”
Eleanor Roosevelt in her original statement was referring to each person’s individual development, but it applies as well to how a community develops. In the next few years South Haven will discover who we are as a community as we decide how we will develop, who will profit, who will lose.
We are a beautifully situated community. It is clear why others would want to relocate here to retire or live seasonally. Visitors describe us as “friendly”, “charming” and a town that recognizes and preserves our heritage. Like many other towns in the industrial Upper Midwest we are also a community which has lost our industrial base that provided a comfortable living for families for generations.
We’re a lovely community and in many ways we are hurting. There are few living wage jobs in town. Real estate values have increased to the point that a young family just getting started could not afford to live inside the City limits. We are already a community that is half empty for a large part of the year. And we are aging; most of us living here are eligible to make up a very large chapter of AARP. This is not the recipe for a truly healthy community.
Developers of condominiums have eagerly approached the City with plans for both large and small developments. Understandably, the increased tax base offered by such development is attractive to City government. The benefits of development to the City General Fund are obvious.
Or are they? There are costs to development in increased need for streets, sewers, water systems and police and fire protection. Several studies have shown that for every $1.00 of tax income a local government receives as a result of new development it spends up to $1.50 in additionally required services. We have also had the experience of developers who make beautifully constructed power point presentations of their proposals, but in reality create environmental or neighborhood nuisances.
Development here is inevitable. But we should not be an easy mark for developers who want to turn a rapid profit. We must ask a lot of anyone wanting to profit from our assets. In some cases certain of our assets should not be for sale. For instance, South Haven will be permanently changed and an essential part of our character will be lost if we sell access to the Lake and River as a fix for current budget stresses. We can ask that anyone proposing development here use local labor and buy whenever possible from local businesses. We can develop ordinances that favor construction using renewable heating and cooling mechanisms or maintains a high proportion of green space.
We can be creative in granting developers the privilege of building in South Haven. Let’s take time to understand the costs and advantages of development and to specify development investments that benefit many facets of our community. Let your City representative know that you support a well-defined, time limited moratorium on any development plans asking for waivers to current ordinances.
Posted by Elaine at 11:06 AM | Comments (1)
September 10, 2005
More "Wild Accusations" (amended)
At Tuesday night's City Council meeting, Councilman Larry King referred to "wild accusations". Here's one for you. But the only thing wild about this accusation is how wildly TRUE it is.
The draft of the 9-6-2005 City Council minutes do not record the Council's decision to bar me from speaking. What a WILD coincidence.
The incident, including the Mayor's suggestion to bar me from speaking, discussion and my objections to not being allowed to speak does not appear in the minutes at all. As the videotape will clearly clearly show such challenges and discussions, City Council should vote to approve the minutes with appropriate amendments.
Of course, I will email them and offer them the opportunity to set the record straight in case there is any challenge to the city's action.
The minutes are the legal record of the meeting. False minutes, it seems to me, are as bad as barring someone from speaking on a relevant issue during an officially open public hearing.
Recommended draft amendment with my proposed insert in QUOTATION MARKS:
Moved by Smith to open the public hearing regarding the special assessment district.
Seconded by King.
Voted Yes: All. Motion carried.
"Elaine Herbert, 140 North Shore Dr – requested to read an e-mail sent to City Council by Don Bemis, the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Lewis said the letter is not "germane".
Ms. Herbert said it was, indeed, relevant because it had to do with the subject of the public hearing currently opened.
The Mayor still attempted to get the council to vote to not allow Ms. Herbert to speak.
Ms. Herbert reminded Council that she asked during the workshop session just prior to this meeting if the subject of the Planning Commission would be discussed during the Quaker St. Improvement agenda item and was told yes. Otherwise, Ms. Herbert said, she would have spoken under agenda item "Citizens Speak on Items Not on the Agenda".
Discussion. Mr. Paull said the letter was part of the public record and available to the public.
Ms. Herbert said the letter was not included in the City's website agenda or agenda notes and was not available to the public. Mr. Paull said the public could read it on the internet. Ms. Herbert said that her personal blog is not where the public should be expecting to read Council correspondance. Ms. Herbert said that the letter was sent to Council and members of the Planning Commission, not the public, and that no one on Council had responded. That, and the failure to include it in the meeting agenda, is why she wanted to read it.
Councilman Stegeman said that he had not read the letter (email),
didn't know what it was about and that Ms. Herbert should read it.
Moved by King to receive comments from Don Bemis by including Mr. Bemis’ e-mail as part of the official record. Seconded by Paull.
Voted Yes: All. Motion carried.
Ms. Herbert was not permitted to read the letter.
Moved by King to close the public hearing regarding the special assessment district.
Seconded by Fahs.
Voted Yes: All. Motion carried.
(This entry was amended 9-14-05 to correct the record. The vote was to submit the letter to record, not to ban me from speaking. Nevertheless, I was not allowed to speak during a public hearing, period.)
Posted by Elaine at 02:49 PM | Comments (7)
September 07, 2005
RIP Open Meetings Act
What if you had a public hearing and nobody was heard?
No, I don't mean not *listened to*, which we've come to expect.
I'm saying NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK.
That's what happened at last night's Council meeting.
The city is getting ready for the "Quaker Street Reconstruction Project", a DDA project.
The public had a first "chance" to see the plans at a Council workshop a week ago, a meeting that was planned late on a Friday, NOT posted on the city's website and held on the next Monday night. No one from the public attended because, duh, no one knew about it.
Last night the so-called Public Hearing for Quaker St. Reconstruction was set, opened, closed and decided, signed/sealed/delivered, all in the same breath at Council. Wow, that's a blur!
Seems the twenty-some adjoining property owners who will be assessed $5,000 or so each..... were all contacted and invited to
a previous, private, not-public meeting to discuss the issues.
Perfect, that way the "public hearing" won't be ruined by all that pesky public speech.
When I stood to speak it was my intention to read Don Bemis's letter (he was unable to attend) and ask City Council why the Planning Commission had once again been sidestepped, not consulted.
Why was there no Special Use request, as the ordinance requires, no public hearing, also required, no analysis of and approval of the construction plans, also required?
Since no one on The City Council had responded to Don's letter, it seemed appropriate to ask again so the public could hear the question and, possibly, an answer.
I was not allowed to speak.
They even took a VOTE to specifically NOT allow me to speak.
Then they even took a vote to specifically NOT allow the Planning Commision to view the plans.
The meeting was a shameless display of arrogance and censorship.
The disrespect and disregard for the Planning Commission and the voice of residents by this City Council is manifest.
Posted by Elaine at 10:43 AM | Comments (1)
September 04, 2005
Quaker St., Redefined, Resurfaced and Renegade
Boom! Big news for a handfull of downtown property owners who each get to ante up about $5,000 for the "special assessment" needed for the "Quaker St. Redevelopment". DDA funds will be used for some of the work, another $86,487.00 collected from these 23 poor souls who just happen to have invested in the downtown.
City Council has it on their Tuesday agenda to approve the work, the assessments and the bid award. It's a public hearing on the topic, yes, yet the public has never before seen any of the plan. It's quite impossible to decipher on the city's website too.
This came today from Don Bemis, Chairman of The Planning Commission, sent to City Council and Planning Commission concerning an item on Tuesday's Council agenda, "Quaker Street Redevelopment".
"The Planning Commission has never been shown the Quaker Street redevelopment plan. The first definite information I saw was in the City Council agenda package for the September 6 meeting, which shows the Quaker Street parking lot reconfigured and the Quaker - Williams Street intersection eliminated. Maybe this is a good idea. Quaker Street will change from a through street into a parking lot entrance, and buildings on Quaker Street will face a parking lot instead of a thoroughfare. If there is any question about this interpretation, note that the new western end of Quaker Street will not be wide enough to be a legal street. The three westernmost parking spaces and aisle do not meet Zoning Ordinance dimensional requirements. Neither do the four parallel spaces on Quaker Street, and possibly not the two parking lot driveways onto Williams Street. Any change in parking capacity is not shown. Street width and parking space dimensions were major factors in three recent PUD site plan reviews, including one recommendation for denial. If the City violates its own laws, it risks lawsuits from others who are forced to abide by them.
A Special Use Permit, public hearing and site plan review are required to construct a municipal off-street parking lot in the CBD (Zoning Ordinance 601.6.b). At the very least, the west end of Quaker Street will be replaced by a new off-street parking lot. (Ref. 1801.3: "...Backing directly onto a street shall be prohibited.")
The City and DDA again are making major plans for the heart of the city without review or input from the people that were appointed to review plans, or the public that owns the property. Additional examples have included the Dyckman Park/Huron Lot redesign, the Baseline Road bicycle route that doesn't connect to any other bike route, and authorization of a pavilion for the Huron parking lot without a legally required special use permit. I am disgusted that some people involved in these efforts seem to think that other interested parties should be left out.
Why should the Planning Commission be involved? Partly to help identify and repair potential issues before they become embarrassments. The Huron Lot project violated the Master Plan goal of a thirty-foot wide greenbelt along Huron Street. When I drove in the Huron parking lot on Saturday, I was again reminded how badly it is laid out. What is wrong with letting people with reviewing experience review City plans? Why is it important that we review private applicants' plans but not the City's plans? Why does the City complain about the school district not having to conform to zoning laws and then disregard the planning process itself?
Some members of the City Council have said privately that the City should follow the same plan review process as the private sector. Now is the time to start. I believe the City Council should vote to submit a Special Use application for reconfiguration of Quaker Street and the parking lot. If the plan satisfies legal requirements, the Planning Commission must approve it. If it doesn't, maybe the City should think twice. After review and approval, THEN the City Council would vote to authorize the surface reconfiguration. Utility assessment and replacement could proceed in advance if necessary, but surface reconstruction would have to wait for special use approval. This presents a risk that assessed property owners may face a construction zone longer than desired. The City might instead find it advisable to obtain approval for the street and parking plan before assessing property owners and digging up the area.
If the process is onerous to the City, it likely is onerous to the private sector as well. This will help the City Council determine whether the planning process should be streamlined."
Donald A. Bemis
Posted by Elaine at 07:10 AM | Comments (2)
September 03, 2005
Planning Commission Recommends Moratorium!
On Thursday evening the Planning Commission passed a motion to send a recommendation to City Council to set a 9 month moratorium on new PUD construction to study the impact of new development on all aspects of livability in South Haven.
Citizens in favor of this idea and who have a vision for the future of South Haven will now be called upon to act. The first order of business (no small task) will be to try and get The City Council to agree and act on the idea. Currently it is not on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting, so I presume it will be at the September 19th meeting. As usual, email, letters and appearances at the podium are recommended if you want to be heard on the subject.
But the work can begin whether The Council decides to play along or not.
A friend writes:
I think it could start in either of 2 ways. The best way would be for it to start under some official authority. The city council (preferably) or the planning commission could pass a resolution to start a study. The topics in the moratorium motion could be expanded and fleshed out. The planning commission could then set up a public meeting with a structured agenda to get public input on areas of concern. After that, the commission could perhaps proceed with study groups for various areas. The internet can certainly be used heavily for information and ideas as a lot of other communities are dealing
with exactly the same issues. I think e-mail among the PC members on this subject is a good idea. I think I would wait to see what the council's reaction is to the moratorium and then see if the PC wants to take the lead, if necessay.
The second way would be for citizens to organize a study group and come up with recommendations if the PC or the council doesn't take the lead.
Food for thought.
Posted by Elaine at 11:07 AM | Comments (4)