Thursday, June 16, 2005

Eccentric's vision is blurred on volunteerism

The Birmingham Eccentric sees a blurry line between volunteerism and personal benefit from volunteerism in the Booth Park design project (Editorial: Volunteerism has its limits, June 16) not because any impropriety or conflict of interest occurred, but because the Eccentric's own vision is blurred.

The resident professionals who contributed their time to the concept design did not do so with the expectation of personal benefit. They did it out of dedication to their community, and because they agreed with me that the community deserved something better than what had been planned up until their involvement. No master plan for Booth Park and its surrounding area existed; we provided one, which was subsequently adopted by the city. Plans for the playground were substandard; we raised the bar and provided a playground design that has been universally lauded and that is surely going to win design awards and bring recognition to the community.

The volunteer professionals drew a clear and unblurred line with organizers, and it was between the concept design and the much more labor-intensive phase of producing detailed construction documents. Once the concept design was complete and approved by the city, they backed off unless and until they were formally engaged. Everyone involved knew the extent of their volunteerism, and knew exactly where the line was drawn. When it came time to contract for the construction drawings, the city could have engaged others, but it would have been a foolish decision that would have cost taxpayers a lot more.

If the Eccentric focused its vision, it might see some truly blurry lines between volunteerism and self-promotion in town. Take, for example, the Shain Park Study Committee, which recommended building below Shain Park a costly underground parking structure, which may or may not ultimately prove to be cost-effective, but will surely be a boon to both the Community House and the Townsend Hotel. The committee included such highly self-interested members as Peter Wilde, manager of the Townsend, and Shelley Roberts, executive director of the Community House. Their appointments were recommended by city staff, ratified by the City Commission and accepted by them, showing just how widespread and chronic blurred vision of volunteerism seems to be in Birmingham.

If we go ahead with the current design for Shain Park, and Ron Rea, the previously anonymous desiger, is engaged to contribute to the detailed design work, we would expect and want to compensate him appropriately for that phase of work, and to do so free of any spurious claims of self-interest. At long last, our city has begun to benefit from the great design talent that resides here, and gets the talent substantially free of cost, only to face the criticism and chilling effect of a hometown newspaper that can't seem to see clearly.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Download, sign petition on residential zoning

Click here to download the following petition:

We, the undersigned residents of Birmingham, wish to express our general support for current residential zoning ordinances, particularly those governing detached garages. These ordinances were adopted in response to concerns about the construction of so-called "bigfoot" and garage-front homes. They have successfully led to less massive structures with fewer front-facing garages, which is in keeping with our historic desire for traditional, walkable neighborhoods. Furthermore, for owners of existing homes, many of whom are growing families, the ordinances provide an incentive to remain in the community by giving a way to gain additional living space without demolition, reconstruction or major renovation. Birmingham's residential zoning ordinances are delicately balanced, and we urge the City Commission to consider all aspects of the ordinances before changing any individual provisions.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Alternate Shain proposal omits Lot 7

An alternate plan for renovating Shain Park would leave Lot 7 out of the mix and orient the park east-west, closing Bates between the park and Baldwin Library and closing Henrietta between the park and City Hall.

The plan, presented to the Birmingham City Commission Monday night by Roger Gienapp and Russell Dixon, differs markedly from a plan sent anonymously to the city in April and since adopted as the concept for future development of Shain Park. That plan was designed by Ron Rea, Roman Bonislawski and Jim Denton of Ron & Roman design studio in Birmingham.

Gienapp, a former member of the Planning Board, and Dixon, a former commissioner, are both architects. They said they presented the plan to urge the commission to consider alternatives to the current plan, which features two levels of underground parking and which will cost nearly $12 million for both the parking structure and the park.

The Gienapp/Dixon plan is based on a plan for the park first published in 1926. Gienapp says it respects the east-west orientation of the Civic Center, and avoids all questions regarding parking. As part of the plan, the pair recommended opening Martin Street to Southfield Road, and making it two-way.

The commission took no action on the plan. Commissioners Tom McDaniel and Scott Moore suggested the new ideas could be used as a "fallback" plan if the Rea concept doesn't work out for some reason.

Commissioner Gordon Thorsby, who said he opposes the Ron Rea plan, nonetheless cautioned fellow commissioners about changing direction in mid-stream, saying it would send a message that the commission is unsure of what it wants in a renovated Shain Park.

The commission has never formally set a program for the park, deciding instead that any plan must preserve roughly the same amount of parking as currently exists on the site. They have followed the rough outline of the 2016 Plan, which recommended replacing Lot 7 with a park.

The differences between the two plans are dramatic:

* The Rea plan proposes adding some 36,000 square feet of park space; the Gienapp plan adds around 24,000.
* The Rea plan includes two levels of underground parking at a cost of at least $8.7 million; the Gienapp plan includes no parking, leaving Lot 7 intact.
* The Rea plan leaves all streets open, including Merrill Street, which bisects his park; the Gienapp plan closes both Henrietta and Bates along the park.
* The Rea plan would most likely require a vote to issue bonds to cover the cost of the parking structure; the Gienapp plan would require no vote.

Commissioners Dianne McKeon, who encouraged Gienapp to present the plan, and Julie Plotnik were absent Monday. Discussion of the plan is likely to resume at future commission meetings. Gienapp was urged to meet with Rea to discuss the two plans, and several commissioners expressed anticipation of public comment once the Gienapp plan was publicized.

Click here to download a .pdf of the Gienapp/Dixon presentation to the commission.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Background on garages from anonymous poster

The following was posted anonymously on our Discussion Forum:

Posted: June 09 2005,15:48
By: Garage Guy

Actually, the current garage law wasn't "ironically passed during the reign of the antis." It was part of a compromise measure crafted to put a stop to the Bigfoot civil war. It worked.

What was going on at the time was a hectic building boom during the 90s prosperity. The smaller lots had become, in essence, more vaulable than the houses on them. This is normal upgrade development and continues today---thank Heaven.

The boom led to lots of stuff happening, including marginal contractors behaving like pigs (ergo the Builder/Neighborhood Codes of Conduct) as well as the classic "Bigfoots:" lotline to lotline, front to back Brooklyn-style townhouses, some of them technically described as "butt-ugly." Reaction rolled all issues together and was intense, and the builders' reaction was equally energetic. Anyone remember the builder-financed anonymous scare flyers, or the Commission meeting at Seaholm where builder-imported mobs shouted "recall" and Lanzetta responded with "rats in a sewer?" So much for genteel Birmingham civility.

The response of the Commission was actually fairly tame. The garage-house phenomenon was regulated down. Next came the Bigfoot Ordinance, which restricted lot coverage and size. Despite threats from builders, the statute actually held up and the bigfoot controversy faded. You could still build big honking houses in Birmingham, just not eat up all the space and dump the resulting stormwater on your neighbor or the drain system.

But if you take something away, you need to give something in return. That was the garage. The term "Bigfoot Garage" is a perjorative, not a descriptor. It's a demagogic political term, meant to evoke an negative emotional response. People have built some beautiful big garages. People have built butt-ugly ones. The difference is aesthetics and good architecture--neither of which can be regulated by the government.

Yup, it was vaguely assumed that the one-size ordinance would eventually be supplemented with a neighborhood specific..or more accurately size-specific refinement, but before that could happen, Birmingham was convulsed as the real "anti" faction gained the upper hand with restricting downtown development, tree ordinances, all-city historical districts, ethic laws, Gary Kulak, etc. The Step 2 never happened.

Finally the election of 03 swept away the "pro neighborhood" faction, which had become the anti-development Dante Party. Development wars have been superceded by other concerns, like sewer replacement, park development, and fiscal challenges. A new generation of neighborhood activists have arisen, for whom development wars are antique as high-tech IPOs

But now the remnants of the Dante Party are back, trying to overturn the settlement. You got 2 issues. First is should the city go back and revisit the Bigfoot Law with a measured Step 2? While superficially a no-brainer, re-opening of the issue evokes suspicions that the pro-restriction folks would use it as a trojan horse to tighten restrictions on permissible building. The Bigfoot Law was a societal compromise, has proved a law we can live with, and should be approached with the utmost caution--if at all.

Issue number 2 is simple: why are the Anti-growthers allowed to push this agenda at all? I thought they LOST THE ELECTION. Lost, as in thrown out, broomed, repudiated. 2003 wasn't a squeaker, divided-community election but ride-em-out-of-town-on-a-rail mandate.

Sure, some anti's stayed on as holdovers on Boards. But Board members need to execute the policy of the elected Commission, not act like bored-in moles, advancing an agenda of the losers. Elections need to matter.

If the anti-development crowd wants to further restrict residential building, they have a perfect opportunity: this fall's election. Let them file as candidates and run on the platform of turning back the clock to the good old days of 2002. Let the voters decide.

The current BCC majority should tell the defeated party to quit these maneuvers. Holdover Board members need to be scrutinized. If "the residents" are really burning with desire for smaller houses and garages, they can vote for them in November.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Buzz seeks RFP for Bates Street extension

Buzz editors Clinton Baller and Christopher Longe will ask the Birmingham City Commission to move ahead with a major element of the 2016 Plan Monday night when they recommend that the city issue an RFP for the so-called Bates Street Extension.

The pair will urge redevelopment of the 3.5 acres, which currently is occupied by the North Old Woodward parking deck and a surface parking lot.

"The site borders the Rouge River, and it's one of the most beautiful pieces of property in town," Baller said. "Right now, the best of it is hidden behind a fence at the bottom of a parking lot, and the rest of it is, well, a parking lot. We really need to make better use of it."

The 2016 Plan recommended extending Bates St. to N. Old Woodward, expanding the parking deck and selling some of the land to residential developers, who would build apartments or condos lining the deck and a portion of the ravine frontage.

Baller thinks it might be a better idea to demolish the deck and replace it with tax-producing mixed-used development. "Parking can be put underground and/or integrated with the development," Baller said. The site has 545 parking spaces in the deck, and 200 spaces in the surface parking lot.

"A conservative estimate of the value of the property is three and a half to $4 million per acre," Baller said. "We're not suggesting that we sell all of it. For sure, we'd want plenty of public space there, and a good connection to Booth Park."

Depending on how much is developed, annual tax revenue to the city could be increased by $500,000 to $2 million a year, Baller estimated. "That's significant for a city with an annual budget of around $50 million."

Baller and Longe plan to present elements of the 2016 Plan, along with additional drawings by Mark Nickita, a member of the Birmingham Planning Board and a principal of Archive Design Studio, an urban planning firm in Detroit.

City Manager Tom Markus said he supports the general outline of the plan, and thinks the site would be ideal for underground parking because of the sloping grade. He also supports the idea of putting out an RFP to private developers for the development of public land, a practice that's common elsewhere but has rarely been used in Birmingham. "I think we should take a look at some plans, and give voters a clear idea of what we want to do," Markus said. He said he would most likely advocate selling land (which would require a vote), rather than leasing it long-term, because leasing would pose an obstacle to the sale of condominiums.

Bren Buckley, vice-president of development for Burton-Katzman Development Co., developers of the former Jacobson's site that abuts the parcel, said her firm has "studied that site quite intensively in the past and would be interested" in participating in discussions about any future development. "We would be interested in seeing the open parking area redeveloped with mixed uses, with parking incorporated in the development," she said.

Click here to download a 4MB+ .pdf of the presentation to the commission.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Don't let the Antis' be the only voices heard on garages

On June 20, the City Commission and Planning Board will meet jointly to discuss, among other things, the law that governs construction of garages and other accessory structures in Birmingham.

A small contingent of virulent Antis will be on hand to oppose the current law, which was enacted five years ago in a successful effort to discourage the construction of garage-front homes. Their presence will be part of an orchestrated campaign of petitioning, letter-writing and media PR designed to influence the boards' decisions on the matter.

Since the law was changed -- ironically during the watch of the Antis -- the number of new garage-front homes, which are for the most part ugly and turn their backs defiantly on their neighborhoods, has dramatically fallen. Instead, most new homes in Birmingham are well-designed and have welcoming front porches.

We've written about the logic of this decision before, and the very real threat that if you eliminate the incentive of a detached two-story garage, the garage-front home will return.

Perhaps the law could use some tweaking. But the Antis who are pounding their fists and throwing around a lot of inflammatory rhetoric are approaching the subject without logic or reason. And they are completely oblivious to the unintended consequences of turning back the clock. Which would be completely in character for them.

Paul Reagan, Ralph Seger, Bill Dow -- they've all joined the effort ostensibly led by Alice Thimm by signing petitions or a form letter written and sent to City Hall by Thimm. The names are familiar, and we can't help but think they're gearing up for November. (Can Dante Lanzetta be far behind them?) They've dubbed the garages "Bigfoots," called all the compliant reporters at the News and Free Press, and even gotten a little footage on the local TV stations. "Bigfoot returns to Birmingham!" (Don't get us started on the reporters who staff the journalistic netherworld of the suburban bureaus.)

We know you have much better things to do, but you really need tell the Paul Marion Reagans of the world -- not to mention our City Commission and Planning Board -- that the law as it stands is substantially right. It worked. Don't screw it up.

The June 20 joint Planning Board/City Commission meeting is at the Department of Public Services, 851 S. Eton St., at 7:30 p.m.

Or send an email to City Manager Tom Markus at tmarkus@ci.birmingham.mi.us and ask him to forward it to Paul, Racky and the rest of the gang.

Don't let the voices of the Antis be the only ones heard!

Lower speed limits, more stop signs will make the city even more walkable

Birmingham calls itself "a walkable community."

On its website, its stationery and elsewhere it uses the term to describe itself -- appropriately, we think. In fact, Birmingham seems more walkable than ever, and if the people on our streets are any indication, more walked than ever.

We're not going to guess at the reasons why, but in almost every season, including the darkest days of winter, the streets of Birmingham seem to be teeming more and more with walkers, joggers and cyclists.

It's not just adults taking to our streets. Now that school's out, the children who occupy the increasing number of big homes with small yards seem to be playing more and more in or near the streets.

Which got us wondering about stop signs and speed limits.

On streets full of walkers, joggers, cyclists and children at play, cars going 25 MPH are going too fast. Whether its in a neighborhood (with or without cut-through traffic) or uptown in front of the Birmingham Theatre or the Palladium, we need to slow things down. The law shouldn't specify the same speed limit for cars in those places as it does for cars cruising down Maple in front of the Kroger, or on Adams for most of its length through town, or merging onto Woodward from S. Old Woodward.

We've also noticed a lot of inconsistency -- and not a few close calls -- at intersections with stop signs around town. Again, it happens in the neighborhoods as well as in town. We don't know who decides whether an intersection should be a four-way stop or not, or why, but too many drivers (many talking on cell phones) are failing to look and making wrong assumptions about whether an intersection is a four-way stop. So they go when they should stop. Or stop when they should go.

We think most intersections in Birmingham that don't have a stoplight should be made four-way stops. Sure, there will be logical exceptions, but we need to eliminate the guesswork that too often occurs.

As for speed limits, we're told that the minimum legal speed limit in Michigan is 25 MPH, and anything less might not be enforceable. Our answer: So what! Post the 15 MPH signs anyway. We have no doubt they'll slow things down whether or not a speeding ticket can be upheld in court.

We're getting to be codgers, aren't we?

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Judge OKs sale of Midtown for $1.15 million

An Oakland County judge has approved the sale of the Midtown Cafe to Birmingham developer Brian Timlin for $1.15 million.

Timlin bid on the property during disposition of the estate of the late Bruce Cameron, who owned the Midtown for 32 years.

Timlin told the judge he planned a $50 million-plus mixed-use development in the Triangle District, and that he would close the Midtown and move the liquor license to the new development, which is to straddle Bowers and Elm and include the site of Baker's Square restaurant.

If consummated, the sale would essentially raise the price of a liquor license in Birmingham to more than $1 million and renew debate about allowing the transfer to Birmingham of liquor licenses from elsewhere in Oakland County.

"It would absolutely set a new benchmark," said downtown property owner Ted Fuller, a proponent of allowing more liquor licenses in Birmingham.

Fuller has argued repeatedly that the city ought to allow transfers. But the Birmingham City Commission, concerned that it might open a floodgate of new licensees and lose control over their number and use, has balked at doing so.

"The debate is dead for now," said Birmingham City Commissioner Tom McDaniel, who favors more licenses, but only if the city has adequate control. "If somebody comes up with another alternative" that would give the city more control, "we have half a chance, but we have to be assured that it's not going to be 'Katy-bar-the-door' and open it up to whoever wants a license, and whatever kind of place."

Birmingham City Manager Tom Markus asked, "Is it necessarily a bad thing that the value of licenses in Birmingham is growing? ... I guess it depends on your vision for the community."

"Those who really want [more licenses] should proffer the suggestion that we have a referendum to find out if the public really wants more licenses. It's hard to know what the public really thinks of the issue; it would be interesting to know," Markus said.

Timlin would be able to use the license for multiple establishments, so long as they occupy the same property.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Anonymous park designer revealed

Ron Rea, Roman Bonislawski and Jim Denton of Ron & Roman design studio are the anonymous designers of the Shain Park plan.

They attended a meeting this morning of the Shain Park Study Committee and presented a revised plan that adds around 30 more surface parking spots in and around the park.

Eighteen parking spots were added on Merrill Street around the Marshall Fredericks statue, creating a hard surface that could be closed and covered during special events and on weekends, when Rea said flea markets or book sales could be scheduled to coincide with the Birmingham Farmers Market.

Rea, a resident of the Mill Pond neighborhood, is a well known designer of restaurants, retail stores, residential interiors and other projects. He is also an expert gardener and brought his knowledge of plants and landscaping to the project. He said he remained anonymous because he wanted the plan to speak for itself. He came forward now since the plan has gained wide acceptance and since city officials requested his input.

Members of the committee and guests gave the designers a round of applause at the meeting.

City Manager Tom Markus said, "I think it's good that we're able to identify him at this point -- and thank him publicly. I think the review of the plan has gone so well that any advantage of anonymity is lost... I don't think it makes any difference anymore."

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Another vision for the wasteland

The last time we expressed a vision for that vast wasteland between Woodward and Adams south of Bowers that contains Border's and Papa Joe's, we mentioned a college campus.

Well, that didn't get much traction, and so while thinking of alternatives, we read a very interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal today.

"Metropolitan Magnet," was the headline. "If Whole Foods Market Is Part Of a Retail/Condo Complex, New Apartments Sell Briskly," was the subhead.

"With the resurgence of urban living, Whole Foods Market Inc. has found a sweet spot serving the sophisticated tastes of these new city dwellers," says the article. "The fast-growing chain, based in Austin, Texas, not only alleviates the dearth of supermarkets in many downtowns but does so with style..."

"Indeed, cities trying to improve their downtowns are seeking out grocery stores. 'Many cities, particularly the densest parts, have been dramatically underserved by grocery stores for the past couple of decades,' says Michael Beyard, a senior resident fellow at the Urban Land Institute. 'They're a major factor in stabilizing neighborhoods and rising property values.' "

The gist: Put an upscale grocery store (Papa Joe's, maybe?) on the first floor of a well-designed, high-rise, mixed-use, residential/office/retail complex that becomes the focus -- along with Worth and Bowers streets -- of a whole new, vibrant neighborhood.

What do you think?

Get accurate estimate of Shain Park cost, or consider alternatives

Surprise, surprise. Plans to expand Shain Park have been put on hold again because of the cost. So what else is new?

Every time the city looks at expanding the park, the costs get prohibitive and nothing gets done.

Last time, it was plans for a neo-modern (or was it neo-classical?) Wintergarden estimated to cost $10 million (or was it $20 million?) that went in the trash.

This time, it's a $6.7 million (or is it $8.9 million? Or $12.2 million?) design submitted anonymously for an underground parking structure.

Funny thing is, city officials have little real idea how much the current plan will cost, because they asked for an estimate of the plan (with two levels of underground parking, instead of one) from the city's engineering department and consultant, Walker Parking Consultants, and got back an estimate for a modified plan that moved the entrance and didn't take into account all of the amenities of the anonymous plan.

Truth be told, most city residents just want to get rid of the butt-ugly parking lot across from the Community House. Since it coincidentally is located adjacent to Shain Park, the notion of expanding the park seems to make sense.

Or not.

Almost 10 years ago, during development of our downtown Birmingham 2016 Plan, world-renowned city planner Andres Duany came up with a simple plan that would save 70% (or was it 60%? Or 50%) of the parking, and at the same time expand the park.

But that wasn't good enough for city officials, who insisted that we can't lose a single space in front of our beloved Community House. Of course, those officials never set a budget for the project -- never said "THIS is how much we can afford to spend here." Instead, they accepted a plan submitted anonymously that might (or might not) work, and that we might (or might not) be able to afford. Basically, they want to have their cake (the park), and eat it, too (the parking), but they want to keep it within their budget, which they haven't determined.

Last weekend, many of us visited the Art Fair in Shain Park. It was crowded, yes. But it worked, and we didn't hear any complaints that it was too crowded. In fact, it was sort of cozy. Same goes for the Village Fair and almost every other event in Shain Park. When was the last time somebody complained that Shain Park was too small to accommodate our needs? The complaints we hear about the park are vague and have more to do with a lack of amenities (a band shell, for example), or a lack of good design, than a lack of space.

Meanwhile, the complaints about the parking lot are loud and clear. "It's a disgrace!" "It's an embarrassment!"

The first thing the city ought to do is get an accurate estimate for the design that was submitted.

Then, if it turns out to be too expensive, we ought to begin to consider some other ideas.

Here are a few that are simple and affordable and could be done tomorrow and would probably satisfy a lot of the people concerned about both the park and parking:

1. Beautify the parking lot. Landscape it, plant a lot of trees and flowers, get rid of the meters and make it attended.

2. Go to work on a plan to improve the existing Shain Park. Forget about parking cars underneath it.

3. Start analyzing the possibility of putting underground parking elsewhere, on the perimeter of downtown, where it makes sense and might be more affordable. For example, what if we tore down the N. Old Woodward deck, put parking under the whole tract of land that includes the deck and surface lot, and sold or leased the land for mixed-use development? Would such a project be more affordable? After all, the parking would be part of a bigger commercial project, we'd derive revenue from the land sale or lease, and previously untaxed property would be put back on the tax rolls, giving us some long-term income. Would tax-increment financing work?

4. While we're at it, think about eventually doing the same at the Pierce, Park and Peabody structures.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

On global warming

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Birmingham city government -- unless, of course, you think survival is related to the reasonable functioning of our city.

I apologize for the departure.

But do yourself and your kids a favor and read the excellent series of articles just published in the New Yorker magazine about global warming. Click here to read, print or download them.

Like many, I have been substantially oblivious until now to the extent and immediacy of the problem.

"It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing," writes Elizabeth Kolbert, who traveled extensively to document in human, scientific and political terms what is, unquestionably, the most important issue we refuse to face effectively.

"The year 1990 was the warmest year on record until 1991, which was equally hot. Almost every subsequent year has been warmer still. The year 1998 ranks as the hottest year since the instrumental temperature record began, but it is closely followed by 2002 and 2003, which are tied for second; 2001, which is third; and 2004, which is fourth. Since climate is innately changeable, it’s difficult to say when, exactly, in this sequence natural variation could be ruled out as the sole cause. The American Geophysical Union, one of the nation’s largest and most respected scientific organizations, decided in 2003 that the matter had been settled. At the group’s annual meeting that year, it issued a consensus statement declaring, “Natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures.” As best as can be determined, the world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last two millennia, and, if current trends continue, by the end of the century it will likely be hotter than at any point in the last two million years.

"In the same way that global warming has gradually ceased to be merely a theory, so, too, its impacts are no longer just hypothetical. Nearly every major glacier in the world is shrinking; those in Glacier National Park are retreating so quickly it has been estimated that they will vanish entirely by 2030. The oceans are becoming not just warmer but more acidic; the difference between day and nighttime temperatures is diminishing; animals are shifting their ranges poleward; and plants are blooming days, and in some cases weeks, earlier than they used to...

“Climate change is a real thing," says Konrad Steffen, a scientist who studies global warming. “It’s not something dramatic now—that’s why people don’t really react. But if you can convey the message that it will be dramatic for our children and our children’s children—the risk is too big not to care.”

The time, he added, “is already five past midnight.”

Kolbert illustrates how global warming has progressed dramatically, and how its progress will accelerate:

"Donald Perovich has studied sea ice for thirty years. ... Perovich works for the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, or crrel (pronounced “crell”), a division of the U.S. Army. ... "Perovich’s particular area of expertise, in the words of his crrel biography, is 'the interaction of solar radiation with sea ice.' During [one] expedition, he spent most of his time monitoring conditions on the [ice] floe using a device known as a spectroradiometer. Facing toward the sun, a spectroradiometer measures incident light, and facing toward earth it measures reflected light. If you divide the latter by the former, you get a quantity known as albedo. (The term comes from the Latin word for 'whiteness.') ...

"An ideal white surface, which reflected all the light that shone on it, would have an albedo of one, and an ideal black surface, which absorbed all the light, would have an albedo of zero. The albedo of the earth, in aggregate, is 0.3, meaning that a little less than a third of the sunlight that hits it gets reflected back out. Anything that changes the earth’s albedo changes how much energy the planet absorbs, with potentially dramatic consequences. 'I like it because it deals with simple concepts, but it’s important,' Perovich told me.

"At one point, Perovich asked me to imagine that we were looking down at the earth from a spaceship above the North Pole. 'It’s springtime, and the ice is covered with snow, and it’s really bright and white,' he said. 'It reflects over eighty per cent of the incident sunlight. The albedo’s around 0.8, 0.9. Now, let’s suppose that we melt that ice away and we’re left with the ocean. The albedo of the ocean is less than 0.1; it’s like 0.07.

“ 'Not only is the albedo of the snow-covered ice high; it’s the highest of anything we find on earth,' he went on. 'And not only is the albedo of water low; it’s pretty much as low as anything you can find on earth. So what you’re doing is you’re replacing the best reflector with the worst reflector.' The more open water that’s exposed, the more solar energy goes into heating the ocean. The result is a positive feedback, similar to the one between thawing permafrost and carbon releases, only more direct. This so-called ice-albedo feedback is believed to be a major reason that the Arctic is warming so rapidly.

“ 'As we melt that ice back, we can put more heat into the system, which means we can melt the ice back even more, which means we can put more heat into it, and, you see, it just kind of builds on itself,' Perovich said. 'It takes a small nudge to the climate system and amplifies it into a big change.' ”

In an online Q&A that accompanies the articles, Kolbert says, "There is a very broad consensus in the scientific community that global warming is under way. To the extent that there are conflicting views, they are usually over how exactly the process will play out. This is understandable... To focus on the degree of disagreement, rather than on the degree of consensus, is, I think, fundamentally misguided. If ten people told you your house was on fire, you would call the fire department. You wouldn’t really care whether some of them thought that the place would be incinerated in an hour and some of them thought it would take a whole day...

"I think there is a surprisingly large—you might even say frighteningly large—gap between the scientific community and the lay community’s opinions on global warming....I spoke to many very sober-minded, coolly analytical scientists who, in essence, warned of the end of the world as we know it. I think there are a few reasons why their message hasn’t really got out. One is that scientists tend, as a group, to interact more with each other than with the general public. Another is that there has been a very well-financed disinformation campaign designed to convince people that there is still scientific disagreement about the problem, when, as I mentioned before, there really is quite broad agreement. And third, the climate operates on its own timetable. It will take several decades for the warming that is already inevitable to be felt. People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger, potentially catastrophic changes."

We have the scientific wherewithal to control the emission of greenhouse gases. What we need now -- NOW -- is the political fortitude. Just this week, General Electric, the biggest publicly traded company in the U.S., announced a comprehensive plan to reduce its own emissions, invest in cleaner technologies and push for tougher federal standards to control emissions.

We need to do our part. Get educated, and take action.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Some facts about taxes

We received the following from Buzz reader Bob Waun:

I have heard several friends, neighbors and clients who want to move out of Birmingham due to the high property taxes we face. I have believed that our tax rates were soaring, while others in our area (without some city services/expenses/downtowns) had much lower tax rates.

Fact is: For a $1mm home with a SEV of $500,000; taxes in Birmingham would be $7,535.95 and in Bloomfield Township $7,039.40. Only $500/yr more to be in Birmingham? Why did I believe that it was a vast difference?

Fact is: Taxes in Michigan are too high on many people. $1000, 2000, 5000/month in property taxes? "Do I get my own Police Officer?" some say.

Fact is: There is a serious tax inequality in our state due to the Headley/Proposal A amendment. I curse the extra 2% sales tax with every MI purchase. When the internet is 0%, no wonder it's growing. It was a bad bet. Sales tax isn't deductible on fed taxes either. What a poor trade off, and how awful for our retailers/consumers.

Fact is: The disparity of taxes paid by long-term (non-moving) residents vs. newcomers is beginning to affect our real estate market. Why move when the tax effect will be so detrimental? Stay and renovate seems to be the choice du jour.

Fact is: Real estate values rise with turnover, & move up buyers. The Real Estate Industry thrives on turnover of ownership. 6% sales commission, 1% transfer tax to the State, fees and costs etc. Economic loss from people choosing to "not move" is staggering.

Fact is: The tax base is growing, but newcomers to market bear the brunt of the majority of expenses. Who wants to join a community/state just to be the burden carrier?

Fact is: This is rent-control revisited, and is beginning to show the market altering effects in our neighborhood. It creates divided communities and all kinds of games that distort/discourage true economic growth.

Fact is: Current property tax code punishes second residence owners (40% higher), how stupid is this when we should be trying to attract retiring baby boomers? Every 7 seconds someone turns 50 this year. No wonder
Florida and other low tax states are growing in population!

Fact is: I benefit personally from Prop A, but I still feel it needs to be altered and made "more equitable" for the future of our state and economy.

There is never a political will to write an email like this, let alone change laws that could be construed as "raising already high taxes"... but, we have a problem, and there is a vote of tax paying feet. (Not just out of Birmingham)

Consider phasing out Prop A, in exchange for reducing the sales tax, reducing the second home penalty and then freezing the property tax rate for seniors over 65. At some age we should all be allowed to pay less,
Bob Evans agrees.

I have forwarded an email discussion I had with Birmingham City Offices this a.m. as proof of my initial fact, Birmingham Taxes are not much higher than Bloomfield. Please continue this unpopular discussion. The
rumblings of a tax payer revolt need to be directed in a productive course.

Bob Waun 248-722-9286

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Ostin [mailto:Sostin@ci.birmingham.mi.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 2:23 PM
To: Tom Markus
Subject: Re: I keep hearing the taxes are so much lower in thetownship.
Please assume a million dollar house in

The millages for Birmingham and Bloomfield Township are as follows:
Birmingham Bloomfield
Operating Levy 11.4452 10.9533
Refuse .8172 -
Library 1.5172 1.5105
Police/Fire - 1.3650
Senion Citizens - .2500
Debt Service 1.2923 -
Total 15.0719 14.0788

Assuming a million dollar house with TV of $500,000 taxes in Birmingham
would be $7,535.95 and in Bloomfield Township $7,039.40.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Redevelop Woodward for more density, walkability, uses

Birmingham's Planning Board and staff should be working to encourage redevelopment of portions of Woodward Ave. for more density and variety of uses while working with MDOT to enhance the walkability of the area and encourage more and better links between the two sides of the city's major thoroughfare.

We've heard plenty of lip service over the years about tying together east and west. We've even heard talk of reopening an old tunnel under Woodward near Oakland. The Woodward median project improved the crossing at Maple and Woodward, but much more can be done, and at relatively low cost. Crosswalks, signage and simple landscaping would do the trick in many spots. The area between Bowers and Lincoln is a great place to start, especially considering that MDOT is about to rework the intersection of Woodward, Old Woodward and Lincoln. Residents of the neighborhoods west of Woodward would benefit from a crossing to Border's and Papa Joe's, and residents east of Woodward should have a few crossings to take them into the central business district. We need more than lip service. This is one area where our city leaders could and should act quickly and with little cost or effort.

More effort would be needed (but would be worth it) to encourage more and better buildings along Woodward. The potential for more than retail -- office and residential -- is huge. The payoff would be more income from taxes, and if done properly, a better urban environment with more usable places. It would also provide a better buffer between the neighborhoods and what amounts to an eight-lane highway.

Needing immediate attention is the area that includes Border's and Papa Joe's. As attractions, these are bright spots in what is otherwise a wasteland within walking distance of downtown. The area is consumed by parking lots and low-density buildings. Desirable New Urban redevelopment of the area will never occur unless the parking lots are replaced by a parking structure or two. Whether such structures are public or private is of little matter in the grand scheme of things. City planners should do whatever they can to encourage such development.

Along the rest of Woodward, taller buildings with mixed uses that include affordable residential rental units or condominiums should replace the inferior structures (single-story, outdated retail) and inappropriate uses (auto service centers) we now see. Much of this redevelopment might have occurred had the leadership of our city not been so obstructionist over the past decade. But now, after more than a year with a new commission and new attitude, it's time to see us play some catch-up.

Garage review should include other residential zoning rules

The decision several years ago to allow bigger detached garages in Birmingham was in large part a compromise to help slow the proliferation of garage-front homes. As vehement as are the opponents of bigger garages, so were the opponents of garage-front homes, who said the homes were ugly and turned their backs on their neighborhoods.

The logic behind building garage-front homes was pretty simple. In a city in which lots sell for roughly $60 per square foot, there is a natural economic desire and necessity to maximize the size of a home.

Given setback requirements for primary residences and other restrictions on how you could develop a residential lot, one of the few ways to maximize interior space was to minimize the size of a driveway, put the garage in front, and build living space above the attached garage. Back then, you couldn't have usable space above a detached garage, but if you attached the garage, you could put anything you wanted above it.

The new rule, which allowed taller detached garages with more usable space (and shorter setbacks), put a virtual halt to garage-front homes. Look around town, and most of the newer homes have neighborhood-friendly front porches. Essentially, the effect of the new rule was to put the ugly stuff in the back of the lot in order to make the front of the house more appealing.

Now comes Alice Dinan-Thimm, who is circulating a petition that opposes such garages. She presented it, with 49 signatures, to the City Commission on Monday night. On Thursday, she was quoted as saying, "The majority of people don't want it [a large garage] in their back yard."

Notwithstanding the fact that 49 residents does not a "majority" make, the City Commission forwarded the complaint to the Planning Board with instructions to review the ordinance. And that's where the review belongs. As we will note momentarily, unintended consequences of zoning changes are a very real risk. The more professional and reasonable the decision-makers, the better the decisions. Now that we have a reasonable and largely professional Planning Board, we are likely to feel comfortable with its recommendations.

Given that the rules regarding garages cannot be considered out of context, we think that any review of the garage rules should also include review of all the rules about residential development.

With regard to garages, we don't mind the heights and uses, but we would mandate a minimum roof pitch. Right now, the 22-foot rule theoretically would allow 22-foot flat-roofed garages, and in some cases has resulted in that, or nearly that. We're also put off by exterior stairways, which tend to have a tenement look. But overall, the gist of the garage ordinance is good and should remain law. The tradeoff that allowed them was worth it. We reject arguments that attempt to tell us what we can and can't do in our homes -- garages included. And comparisons with other communities are just plain silly. Birmingham is unlike virtually any other community around, and that's why many of us live here.

With regard to other residential restrictions, one of the first that should be reconsidered is the overall height limitation of 30 feet. The argument we made almost two years ago -- that the Allen House and other beautiful, historic homes in Birmingham could not be built under current regulations -- still stands. Frankly, we're bewildered that the rule is still in place, and had hoped the City Commission would have moved more quickly in restoring the 30-foot-to-the-midpoint rule, which served us well for decades. The 30-foot-to-the-peak rule was imposed by amateurs on the old commission, and had the unintended consequence of encouraging flat-roofed homes, or virtually flat-roofed homes, and of forcing architects to design homes that look as if they've been built in holes.

With any luck, we're done with unintended consequences, and our memories won't be so short that we forget why we came up with the detached garage rules in the first place. We suspect that if we circulated a petition in favor of the garage rules as they stand, we'd get a lot more than 49 signatures, especially considering that a lot more than 49 garages have been built under the rules.