Thursday, March 10, 2005

Package deal makes sense on Barnum, Rec Center, further parks improvements

We're thinking the best way for the City Commission to dispose of all the issues surrounding Barnum -- what to do with the building, whether or not we get a recreation center -- and to present a grand vision for the use of the rest of the parks bond money, might be to present a package deal to voters.

In our opinion, it might ought to include:

1. A sale of a portion of the Barnum property. Let's face it: We bought the thing to insure continued open space. Nobody really wanted the building, but we didn't have a choice. If we wanted the playfield, we had to buy the building. Now, there's an opportunity to gain back a significant percentage of the purchase price, and put a nice chunk of property back on the tax rolls. We can probably net $6 million-$10 million on the property, and add $500,000-$1 million per year in taxes. Both of those are significant sums.

2. A commitment, if legally feasible, to plow back the proceeds into the parks system. We could do a heck of a lot with that money. If $1 million will get you a pretty elaborate Booth Park, imagine what you could get from another $10 million. And there are plenty of parks that could use it. For starters, Kenning (behind the Ice Arena) needs a master plan, and from there we could move to any number of other parks.

3. A deal with the YMCA that would get us a de facto community center. The Y needs rebuilding, and the Y people and city people all know it. If the Y is squeezed for land (they say they could use some extra parking), we have a nice chunk of land adjacent in St. James park and the parking lot behind the Y (which actually belongs to the city).

4. Some concept plans for parks improvements that will be done with the remaining money and any dough we get back from Barnum.

Seems like a package deal like this would satisfy a lot of people. And with the ball rolling on design plans -- Booth is done and a great plan was just submitted on Shain -- it is likely that we could have a whole host of concept plans available by Election Day that would wow voters and make everybody happy.

Are we on the right track?

New column: Ask Clint... What about those Third World streets?

Email your questions to .

Question: Why doesn't someone write re: the Third World horrible streets that exist NW of Maple such as Fairfax, Puritan, etc.?

Dave

Dear Dave,

We've written before about the city's policy on improving so-called "unimproved" streets like these. Having spearheaded an effort to improve Greenwood, and watched many other improvements move through the system, I can speak pretty knowledgeably on the topic.

In a nutshell, however, these streets will stay in the Third World until one of two things happens:

1. A petition drive is successful, which I will explain in a moment, or,
2. The city's policy for making street improvements is changed, which I will also explain.

Let me explain the city's policy, and then tell you what you'll need to do to see an improvement.

The city considers such streets unimproved because they never were really paved properly. For the most part, they started out as gravel, with mimimal structure or drainage, and over the years were repeatedly cape-sealed, which involves putting down tar and laying more gravel on top. A few years ago, even this practice was abandoned, and so now you have some pretty bad streets that are breaking apart at the edges, and have huge crowns in the middle, and awful drainage. In many cases, the crowns are higher than the sidewalks (which normally would be above the level of the street), and in some cases, the crowns are higher than the first floors of new homes, which are being squeezed by height limitations, although that's a whole 'nuther story.

Anyway, the city doesn't want to pay the costs of improvements, and since so many residents have already paid for their streets to be improved, many in city government think it would be unfair to change the practice of making property owners pay. So I guess we may be stuck with that policy.

Where it gets really dumb, aside from the question of who pays, is how the city now insists that streets get improved. Rather than rationally surveying the city to determine which streets need improvement, and then simply mandating the improvements (and assessing residents), the city requires residents to mount petition drives. This requires a great deal of effort, and in at least one case (Harmon), a resident worked for six years to accomplish the goal. Two petitions were thrown out over those years before the latest commission accepted a third petition. In my case, for Greenwood, I was lucky. I managed to get the signatures of 70-some percent of property owners on my short stretch within just a couple of weeks.

Once signatures are collected, they are presented to the city, which holds a public hearing to determine "necessity." Necessity, of course, isn't necessarily defined as whether or not the street needs work. Instead, it tends to be defined by how many residents signed the petition, and whether or not people show up at the hearing to speak in favor or against the improvement. In this town, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and you can have a majority in favor of something, but fail to show up at the hearing. When the minority shows up and screams against it, down it might go.

Anyway, once "necessity" is determined by the commission, the city figures out exactly how much it's going to cost. The city pays 15%, and property owners pay the rest. Generally, the property owners' share is around $100 per linear foot for curbs, gutters, new sewers and asphalt. Corner lots get a break and, yes, when city property is involved, the city pays 100% for that portion.

Once costs are determined, another public hearing is held to approve the assessment, and then the improvement is scheduled (usually a year or more down the road). At some point, you'll get a bill, and you can either pay it in full, or stretch it out over 10 years at a nominal interest rate. I am told that under certain hardship cases, the state will pay the entire bill, and then put a lien on the property. In extreme cases like that, the lien will be satisfied when the property eventually changes hands.

Once the street is improved, you get leaf pickup, and all further maintenance of the street is up to the city, at no cost to property owners.

There are all sorts of problems that exist with this system. I've pointed out the idea that "necessity" isn't determined by necessity. Another issue is design: how wide the street should be, and what the curb should look like. The city still doesn't have any standards, and so folks on Willits got their concrete rolled curbs dyed gray, and folks on Hazelwood got their curbs cut small and square. Some streets are 30 feet wide, others 26, and still others 20. It's a terrible hodge-podge.

In addition, there has been some angst about sections of streets and neighborhoods being done, rather than the whole street. I petitioned to have Greenwood between Willits and Harmon done, figuring that it would be easier to obtain the necessary signatures. One commissioner voted against the measure because he thought all of Greenwood should be done. My response: You want it done, you go collect the darn signatures!

I think the city ought to change the policy, and either simply declare necessity, without petitions, or help the petition process along by pro-actively seeking input from affected residents. I don't think I would change the method of financing the improvements, however, because it would be very expensive, possibly unfair to those who have already paid, and a very hot political potato.

Anyway, I hope this answers your question. If you want to mount a petition, get in touch with City Engineer Dennis Dembiec at 248-644-1800. But be prepared to have him write the petition to your specifications with regard to desired street width and curb style.

Good luck!

Anonymous designer submits plan for Shain Park

An anonymous designer has submitted to the city a detailed and credible concept plan for Shain Park that includes one level of underground parking and many of the amenities that have been widely suggested since the city completed its 2016 Plan in 1996.

City Commissioners and City Manager Tom Markus received the plan this week. In a cover letter, the designer describes the plan as a "gift." The city had been prepared to spend up to $80,000 on such a concept plan. The design focuses on plans for the park, and is expected to satisfy many members of the community, including commissioners such as Dianne McKeon, who have insisted that the city focus on the park, rather than the parking, as it moves toward redevelopment of Shain and the city's surface parking lot adjacent to the Community House. The plan also provides a graphic depiction of what might be done with the property, another crucial element if the city intends to ask voters to approve the cost of the parking structure.

The plans do not include elevation drawings, which go a long way toward helping the untrained eye envision the design. But architect Christopher Longe, who has seen the plans, says such drawings could and should be completed soon and without much difficulty.

Longe, a Buzz editor, will scan the plan and make it available for distribution. The Buzz will publish it, along with a key to important elements, as soon as an electronic version is available.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Chafetz squeezed out of Parks board

Former Mayor Seth Chafetz lost his bid for reappointment to the Parks & Recreation Board Monday night. Chafetz, who was appointed soon after his ouster from the Commission last year, was one of three applicants for two positions on the board Monday night.

All three applicants were nominated, but newcomer Terry Gates and incumbent John Meehan garnered more support from the Commission.

Chafetz was chairman of the board. A replacement will be elected at the board's next meeting.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

BCC bids Barnum committee fond, final farewell

The City Commission ended a long chapter in the Barnum book Monday night when it voted to disband the Barnum Steering Committee.

More than two years of work culminated with the committee's report Monday. It suggested tearing down the Barnum building and replacing it with an "innovative urban park."

The committee determined that a community recreation center on the site wouldn't work because the cost to renovate the building would be prohibitive, and a recreation center, whether new or refurbished, could never sustain itself without subsidy. Instead, it suggested working with the YMCA, which is considering an expansion of its facility on Lincoln.

The committee didn't look into a potential sale of some of the property, but the commission asked about it, since a sale of half the property could net nearly as much as the $8-point-something million the city paid for the whole thing. Commissioner Scott Moore suggested plowing any proceeds of a sale back into the city's parks, if legally possible.

Neighboring residents came out in force to back the idea of using all the land for a park.

The commission is poised to deal with the issue itself, and instructed the City Manager to return with his recommendations on how to proceed.

Stay tuned.

Barnum report published

We'll let it speak for itself.

Click here, then navigate the Table of Contents from within your browser. If you want to browse it locally from Acrobat directly, you'll have to access and download each piece. It wasn't our idea. Good luck.

Monday, March 07, 2005

Free golf? How 'bout free cable?

Terry Gates, a frequent contributor to the Buzz forums and an avid golfer, is up for appointment to the Parks & Recreation Board tonight. We hear that some people think he's going for the job just to get the free golf at Springdale and Lincoln Hills that board members (and City Commissioners) enjoy.

Well, we have a couple of thoughts on that.

First, Gates would be an excellent choice for the parks board. He's involved, intelligent and he always keeps an open mind. He'd be a great addition to the board, and we urge his appointment.

Second, we think the free golf perk ought to be eliminated, and Gates ought to be the first (er, the second) to suggest eliminating it. Hell, we would have thought the Ethics Ordinance would have outlawed such a dumb policy. How much sense does it make to give policymakers -- the board members and city commissioners who decide how to run and fund our golf courses -- a free ride on greens fees?

Of course, we could continue the perk, and add a few more:

* Free cable for Cable Board members.
* Free parking for Parking Advisory Board members.
* Free permits for members of the Planning Board and HDDRC.
* No late fees for members of the Library Board.
* No PSD taxes for members of the PSD board.
* No speeding tickets for members of the Traffic & Safety Board.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Bravo on Booth decision!

The Birmingham City Commission did the right thing Monday night in approving major improvements to Booth Park. The community group that led the effort gave the commission the right plan for the right park at the right time.

In purchasing the park, the commission gave an important nod to local professionals, who under the previous commission were more often shunned as evil developers than embraced as valuable community resources.

As the commission moves forward and considers such projects as Shain Park, Barnum Center, Kenning Park and others, its action Monday night will pay off handsomely. The commission got a great deal on the Booth Park concept design -- more than $25,000 in professional fees were donated to the city. By encouraging and rewarding grassroots talent, it is likely to get the same kind of input on future projects.

The commission also showed that it's willing to listen to the community. The Booth plan was broadly supported, and virtually no opposition was expressed.

In funding an improvement, the commission also showed that it's willing to spend some of the proceeds of the bond issue on something other than acquisitions. This wasn't the first improvement funded, of course (Quarton Lake Park got about $1 million in improvements out of the bond), but when compared with the $8 million spent on Barnum, and the $2.5 million they're talking about spending to acquire land from Roeper School, the numbers devoted to improvements seem minimal at this point. That's too bad for those of us who voted for the bond primarily because we favored improvements, not acquisitions. But the trend line is moving in the right direction. We think we ought to make the most of what we already own -- and we own a substantial amount of parkland already -- before we spend millions on new land.

Perhaps most important, the commission put our money where its mouth is. Coincidentally, also on Monday night's agenda was a list of goals the commissioners developed at a special session back in December. Uncannily, those goals included:

* Exercise stewardship
* Encourage citizen involvement
* Invest in infrastructure
* Enhance the overall aesthetic environment of the city
* Develop public facilities, including parks and recreation facilities, to meet community needs

The commission went a long way toward meeting these goals with its action Monday night.

BCC funds Booth upgrade

The Birmingham City Commission Monday night approved a community developed master plan for Booth Park, and set aside more than $1 million in parks bond money to pay for it.

Preparation of the site for a community built playground is expected to begin in the fall of 2005, roughly coinciding with completion of the Harmon Street reconstruction project. Construction of the timber play structure, which will involve hundreds of volunteers, is expected to occur in the spring of 2006.

The measure passed on a unanimous vote, with Commissioner Gordon Thorsby absent.

The plans faced no significant opposition, though several commissioners expressed concerns about increased maintenance costs associated with the plan.

The money is expected to be drawn from $15.7 million in bonds already issued.

The commission praised the work of volunteer designers and others who donated an estimated $25,000 in professional fees to the project.

Jim Page, of Michel J. Dul & Associates Landscape Architects, was the lead designer on the project. Michael Willoughby, of Michael Willoughby & Associates Architects, and a member of the city's Architectural Review Committee, designed the park's shelter. Also contributing to the plan were Christopher Longe, a member of the ARC, and Mark Nickita, an urban planner and member of the city's Planning Board. The work was coordinated by resident Clinton Baller, editor of the Birmingham Buzz.

The community group has projected it will collect some $150,000 in private donations to help fund the project. Present at Monday nights meeting was Candy Rosenberg, who, with her husband Jeffery, has pledged $50,000 to the project.

Commission approval cleared the way for additional fundraising and other planning efforts. Already, some 200 adults have signed up to help build the play structure. Fundraising Chairman Dan Boorstein said several events are in the works, including one for adults and another for children. The Commission action also cleared the way for efforts to gain support from other major donors and local businesses.

Monday, February 28, 2005

National City to swap places with McCann-Erickson

Crain's Detroit Business reported today on its front page that National City Bank intends to move 350-400 employees from its Birmingham building at 1001 S. Worth to space formerly occupied by McCann-Erickson in the Top of Troy building.

McCann moved roughly the same number of employees INTO Birmingham shortly after the first of the year. Crain's says National City plans to complete the move by the third quarter of 2005, although it could get neither National City, nor Top of Troy's owner, Kojaian Cos., to substantiate the information.

We think the National City building, at the epicenter of the biggest no-man's land in Birmingham, could be put to better use as, say, the center of a college campus.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Support Booth Park restoration

Please attend Monday night's presentation, or contact City Commissioners to express your support!

A grassroots effort to make long overdue improvements to Booth Park will come to a head Monday night when a citizens committee asks the Birmingham City Commission to approve and fund its plan.

Approval of the design is likely, but funding is by no means assured. Several City Commissioners have expressed reluctance to increase spending on the project, even though the commission has never rationally discussed the appropriate funding level for the project.

Your support is essential to the success of the project. Nearly 200 residents have already signed up to participate in the community-built playground project integrated into the plan. And one family – one family! – has already pledged to donate $50,000 to the project.

You can do your part by showing up at City Hall on Monday night at 7:30 p.m. You need not speak; your mere presence will have an important impact.

If you can’t attend the meeting, you can call or email City Commissioners to express your support. Their numbers and email addresses appear at the end of this item.

The commission has already approved spending roughly $400,000, but that decision was based on a recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Board, which drastically cut a previous community-supported master plan developed in 2002.

In January, the Parks Board reversed its decision, with several members suggesting that the scaled-back plans were based on incorrect assumptions about how much money was available for parks improvements. The board unanimously recommended that the commission fund the citizens committee’s more ambitious plan.

City voters in 2001 approved issuing $25 million in bonds for the acquisition and improvement of city parks. So far, $15.7 million in bonds have been issued, and while much of that money has been earmarked, city officials describe the budgeting process as a “work in progress.”

For example, a significant amount of money is earmarked for further land acquisition. We might ask: Why spend millions to acquire more land if we can’t manage to make the most of the land we already own?
The Booth Park plan includes:

· A landscaped playground that incorporates many natural features with community built structures.
· A sledding hill and skating rink that double in summer as a natural amphitheatre.
· A shelter from rain and sun.
· A natural labyrinth garden.
· A series of lawn waves with dolphin sculptures.
· A significant corner feature with an urban plaza
· A widened sidewalk “promenade” along N. Old Woodward.
· Two bridges linking the park to N. Old Woodward and to the Central Business District.

We think the following are excellent reasons to approve the plans and fund the improvement. You may want to mention some of these reasons when you contact our City Commissioners:

· The improvement is long overdue. Booth – a major city park that borders downtown, the Gallery District, the Rouge River, the Holy Name District and that serves as the northern gateway to the city – was torn up more than 10 years ago for a major sewer project, and was never adequately restored.
· The price tag is reasonable. The cost represents less than 5% of the $25 million parks bond issue. The scaled back plan provided virtually no bang for the buck. This plan is worthy of our city, its residents, and of the park’s heritage and location. It costs no more than a reasonably affluent family spends on a single-family home in Birmingham. The city can afford to spend that amount on an improvement that will benefit the whole town.
· The community wants the improvements. They were called for in 1996 when we wrote the 2016 Plan. They were called for in 2001 when voters approved the $25 million bond issue. They were called for in 2002 during the initial design phase for Booth Park. And they are being called for again by the Booth Park design committee and all the many residents who have signed up to assist with the community built playground.
· We should make the most of what we already own as we consider spending millions on acquiring new land such as the Barnum Center and Roeper School.
· The improvement will enhance property values throughout the city, enhance our infrastructure, and make the city more attractive to future investment, thereby increasing our tax base.
· The Parks & Recreation Board, a diverse group of citizens that represents a cross-section of the city, unanimously backed the plan and recommended that the Commission fund it.
· The Commission will be purchasing not only a fabulous park, but a method for designing future improvements to our city. More than $25,000 in design fees has been donated to the city so far on this project. By funding it, the City will show its respect for community wishes and for design professionals willing to donate their time and expertise. It will also be contributing to the momentum that has developed on the project.

The following City Commissioners are expected to attend Monday night’s meeting:

Mayor Rackeline Hoff (248) 642-1957 rackyhoff@hotmail.com
Don Carney (248) 540-4317 dcarney@unalink.com
Tom McDaniel (248) 540-2677 mcdaniel_tom@hotmail.com
Dianne McKeon (248) 644-8929 djmckeon@aol.com
Scott Moore (248) 644-2875 sdm984@ameritech.net
Julie Plotnik (248) 647-4319 jap1103@aol.com

Thanks for your support!

Freep's Dickerson on the Speed of Light

Check out Brian Dickerson's Wednesday column in the Free Press on the lights atop McCann-Erickson.

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Design 101...

... That's what the City Commission and city staff need, and the Shain Park(ing) discussions and actions starkly illustrate it.

Monday night, the commission approved (5-2, with dissents from McKeon and Thorsby) the following:

"Resolution directing staff to proceed with the Shain Park/Parking Lot #7 Underground Parking Structure timelines dated January, 2005, pursuing the creation of conceptual drawings for both components of this project, with the intent to conduct an election of the purchase of G.O. bonds for the parking structure component in February, 2006. Further, authorizing Walker Parking Consultants to assist the Engineering Division in the preparation of conceptual drawings for the parking structure project at Lot #7, for a total of $30,000.00, to be charged to the Parking Lot #7 Capital Outlay account...

"Further, that the Architectural Review Committee be involved with project from the beginning including but not limited to the development of the rfp. Also that a citizens' committee be organized at an early stage of the process to be determined by staff with a recommendation to the commission at a subsequent meeting."

The discussion was interesting -- amusing, some might say-- and certainly lacked leadership from any quarter. Check it out in reruns on Comcast Channel 15 on any of the following:

2/8: 6:00 PM
2/9: 10:00 PM
2/11: 1:00 PM
2/12: 5:00 PM
2/13: 5:00 PM
2/14: 4:00 PM
2/25: 6:00 PM
2/26: 3:00 PM
2/27: 3:00 PM

Roger Gienapp has added to a drumbeat urging a coherent design process (hell, a mere understanding would be nice!) in a new post on the Buzz forum. Click here to check it out.

Roger is right. And no, Roger, you aren't alone. What you are saying is crystal clear to anyone who understands, for example, the difference between an engineer and an architect. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone sitting up there at the commission table, or, more essential and reasonable, backing them up on staff, who is intimately familiar and experienced with the design process and willing to guide it. Dembiec and O'Meara, able engineers, should admit to their creative limitations.

Before they authorized hiring anyone, we thought the commission should have engaged in a thorough and detailed discussion of the design process -- not just of timelines, but of the players and their roles. Design 101, in other words. In this regard, the Architectural Review Committee is a valuable resource, and it appears the commission recognized this by amending the suggested resolution to include the ARC.

But it still seems they didn't understand the design process BEFORE moving ahead and hiring consultants. Lamentably, they simply relied on the engineering department's recommendations. Choosing the right consultants, we think, is a process in itself.

We remain extremely skeptical of leaving it to the engineers to guide the design process, and suspect that a few commissioners, as well as many members of the public, are still somewhat confused about the process that is being followed. The discussion Monday night illustrated that.

Walker may ultimately be right for the job. But hiring them outside the context of a coherent design process that everybody on commission and staff understands and buys into? NOT!

Thanks for the comments...

... on the McCann item, and keep 'em comin'!

Thursday, February 03, 2005

McCann lights on again after marathon HDDRC session

The McCann-Erickson building will remain lit for at least another two weeks pending a "field trip" to the building by members of the Historic District & Design Review Commission.

The field trip was one of three decisions made Wednesday night during a marathon two and three-quarter hour discussion of the issue that drew spirited comments from proponents and opponents alike.

Architect Chris Longe (a Buzz editor) defended the lights, calling them "exciting" and "invigorating" and comparing them to the lighting on New York's Chrysler Building and Empire State Building. Former HDDRC member (and strident Anti) Bill Dow compared them to lights in Las Vegas and Reno, Nev.

The HDDRC also asked City Attorney Tim Currier for an opinion on whether it has authority over exterior architectural lighting, and voted to allow the lights to stay lit until the field trip. Chairman Keith Deyer and member Marsha Rowbottom voted against both motions. Fellow Anti Jeff Sadowski was absent.