October 04, 2005
" Misinformed" Residents Irritate City Council
City Council is on the defensive. And it aint pretty.
It's certainly gratifying that the flurry of letter writing and speaking up at meetings has gotten their attention. But we don't need officials getting so defensive that they lose their perspective.
Dave Paull went into a tirade about an email he received concerned about a proposed 7 story building at the Bohn site. "There is NO proposal for anything of the kind!", he bellowed, chastising the supposedly ignorant fool who wrote to him. (It was a young person that Debbie Zuckerman knows, actually. Nice way to encourage participation in the future.) Then Paull tells us that there WAS a proposal for the Bohn property but that it has been withdrawn. Well, gosh, how is the young resident supposed to know that? My husband Robert sits on the Board of the DDA, the Authority coodinating the Bohn project, and even the DDA doesn't know the 7-9 story project was "withdrawn".
But don't try to convince us that the project never existed and that we're imagining it. We've all seen the proposal. We've seen the developers standing in a giant crane on the property scoping out their heavenly views. And we know that this 7-9 story development proposal was the impetus behind the new PUD ordinance permitting PUDs in the CBD.
Anyway, the gist of the letter was to oppose taller buildings downtown. That should be what is taken to heart by City Council.
Larry King, constantly snapping his gum with a wide open mouth (ugh), also smugly suggested that the letter writers may wish to "correct" their letters to the editor voicing opposition to the bike path. Seems the issue "hasn't been decided". Really? I was at that meeting. Certainly we listened to lectures about "joining East to West" and "looking to the future" and "the importance of the sidewalk to the college". Sure seemed like four out of seven votes approved $400,000 for the project a month ago.
Certainly the newspaper saw it that way. But now, with the Township saying they will not participate in the cost, Council appears to be backing off the idea, which is fine by me. But don't try to tell us that it was never decided.
At least Councilman Tim Stegeman set it straight. He said "Seems to me you are swinging this around". Thanks for that, Tim.
Posted by Elaine at October 4, 2005 08:19 AM
Comments
Elaine,
Thank you for chastising me on the gum chewing. You weren't the first in line though. You would think I would know better. Anyway, I've received my reminders on proper etiquette and will not do it again.
In terms of the bike path, it was never decided. Please show me in the minutes where a motion was made to spend $400,000 on a bike path.
We did move to have the city manager continue negotions to gain partners in the hopes of being able to do a bike path. And it was stated that it would have to come back to council for any final approval. I don't know where we officially stand with partners at this point, only what I read in letters to the editor.
Given the personal coversations I've had with some of my constituents, I doubt I will support a bike path done on the city of south haven shoulders only. But at least I can say the idea was explored and that time for citizen input was made.
And finally, I stand by my comments to Pat Gaston and Sandy Fenske regarding accuracy of letters to the editor. Sandy and Pat sit with Dorothy Appleyard, Vikke Anderson and yourself at meetings on occassion, if you are going to write letters to the editor and post items on this blog, you have a responsibility to make sure the things you say are accurate. The same responsibility that I have. Otherwise it is political tactics versus community debate.
Larry
Posted by: Larry at October 4, 2005 12:35 PM
The issue is simply this: The four Councilpersons voting YES to the bike path gave all their reasons why they would approve a $400,000 bike path.
Sandy and Pat, in their letters, gave their reasons why they disapprove of that that expenditure.
They have a right to their opinions too.
Splitting hairs on whether the project was absolutely finalized hardly matters. Except that now you have more public input and will, hopefully, vote no the next time you face the issue.
It is my opinion that you might be the one using political tactics to intimidate persons from speaking their minds out of fear of getting some tiny detail wrong. The same way that Dave Paull knew that the letter to him was about tall buildings downtown, not whether the specific Bohn proposal was built or not. The same way parliamentary tactics were used to say that a letter is accepted into the record rather than say
a resident was banned from speaking.
But I don't really care. As I said before, I don't consider this a game. We all struggle to tell it like we see it and without error.
And thanks for eschewing the gum, so to speak.
Posted by: Elaine at October 4, 2005 02:40 PM
Elaine,
I'm not the one who told Bill Bradley to resign because he didn't beleive in zoning. Do you respect the right of individuals to speak or only those that speak your language?
Larry
Posted by: Larry at October 4, 2005 08:54 PM
Are you really so dense? If you don't believe in zoning why would you be on a zoning Board? It's practicality, not censureship, that caused me to ask him to resign.
And it's the City Council that made the ill-advised appointment of him to Planning Commission when they had the opportunity to appoint him to any number of Boards or Authorities where his considerable talents, knowledge and charm might be better utilized.
Posted by: Elaine at October 5, 2005 07:03 AM
I want to be perfectly clear about what I believe occurred at the City Council Meeting on September 6th.
I really don't know what the minutes say, but I do know every comment made because I have just watched the tape again to make sure of my facts.
The agenda item was to give direction to MDOT on which way the city wanted to go on the 5' versus 10' path.
The motion by you was to direct the City Manager to negotiate with MDOT for a 10' bicycle path. I don't think that negotiating meant that the City Manager was to have us get a discount on the project,like 10% off coupon or something, or put up a "cheap" version. The motion did not include one word about having the City Manager find "partners". In fact I cannot find in the tape anyone saying at any time that the City Manager was directed to find partners to share the cost. The entire discussion was about FUNDING. The City Manager had been given a directive by City Council to come up with various ways to fund the 10' project. Now it is your story, and you can tell it anyway you want to, but to the best of my knowledge, I am just presenting FACTS. The whole point was that MDOT wanted a commitment from South Haven one way or another on which way to proceed with agreements and design work. Bill Bradley stated that it appeared that the only thing in question was the funding, and put bluntly, MDOT was looking for us to make a financial commitment. the City Manager answered YES to his query.
I cannot find anything in the tape that anyone stated that this would have to come back to council for final approval. I assume that at some moment in time there would have to be an approval for the City Manager to sign the contract that had been drafted based upon the direction that MDOT was given. That seems like it would be a little late for a lot of public comment - it also seems ridiculous to have MDOT (also using our tax dollars) put more time into this issue by drawing up agreements and doing design work that we would just blow away at a later date. If you feel that we should retract our commitment/proposal to MDOT, then I would think you should have this item put on the Council Agenda as quickly as possible to avoid wasting time and money.
I guess I was not alone in my take on the meeting. An article in the South Haven Tribune dated September 11, 2005 stated that "a plan to build a 10'wide bicycle and pedestrian path.....was approved with a 4-3 split City Council vote....." According to you, that is incorrect. Have you asked the South Haven Tribune to print a retraction on that article?
While I am here I would like to also send a message to your "friend". Your friend indicated a while back a distaste for the Appleyard Democratic Garden Club. I hope he was referring to a garden club in generic terms and not to the South Haven Garden Club. I want your friend to be aware that in the last year alone the South Haven Garden Club has installed at considerable cost a Reading Garden at the Library, maintained landscaping at the Welcome to South Haven sign on Blue Star Highway, helped maintain the gardens at the Liberty Hyde Bailey Museum, and provided seedlings to every third grader in South Haven on Arbor Day. I am only one of approximately 80 members of the South Haven Garden Club, and cannot speak for its members, but I assure you that I am not aware of anyone in our club who is also a member of the Democratic Club (not that there is anything wrong with that)as we do not check credentials at the door, nor do we have any members with the name of Appleyard. I thought maybe your friend would be interested in those facts.
Posted by: Pat Gaston at October 5, 2005 11:20 AM
Pat,
Thanks for that explanation. For clarification, I will presume to explain that your letter is addressed to Larry King, not to me.
Secondly, let me add this. I believe the depiction of "Appleyard's Democratic Garden Club" was meant to be a slur. The reference to gardening, one presumes, is to degrade women. I would consider the source and the juvenile nature of the slur and let it be.
Posted by: Elaine at October 5, 2005 11:38 AM
Pat,
I believe your letter to the editor was correct other than stating the sidewalk was already approved. How many people didn't call council because they figured it was a done deal?
All I'm asking is that you take a few minutes and verify things before you send off a letter. Parlimentary procedures can often make things more confusing to the general public, thats why its important to ask clarifying questions. Its also important for us on council to be clear - something we sometimes fail to do. Which makes it even more important to ask questions.
Anyway, with letters to the editor, you/me (writers) typically want to encourage action. In this case a call to council members expressing the caller's desire not to see the bike path funded. Or was the desired action to encourage a vote for your candidate or against another candidate in the upcoming election? The missinformation makes it look like the later, although I'm not sure that was your intent.
I spoke with my friend earlier this evening at the grocery store. She did not mean anything negative about the garden club as she is a member of it. She meant her distaste for the tactics that a few members of each club (Democratic, Garden and Appleyard supporters) were using. Those tactics include the spreading of missinformation. Maybe the tactic isn't intentional, but the perception means that you have to be even more careful to verify your understanding of an issue before you write a letter or post. She continues to maintain that there is a growing dislike of the misinformation tactics that have been employed over the past year.
Now, the personal attacks on this blog need to stop. In my opinion the personal attacks employed by the host of this blog should be denounced by everyone running for public office or seeking to be an appointed volunteer. Actually they should be denounced by anyone. I wouldn't let my kids talk about another human being the way this blog does at times.
You can attack issues, but personal attacks are way out of line and don't belong in public issue debates in small towns. If we truly do care about our community, we must focus on the issues, not personal attacks against those who may believe differently than us.
Larry
Posted by: Larry at October 5, 2005 09:12 PM
Now that's just plain surreal....A lecture about misinformation and personal attacks from Larry King.
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: Elaine at October 6, 2005 06:41 AM