Buzz # 13 -- March 28, 2002

Promoting intelligence and reason in city government. Our mission: To inform and involve all Birmingham citizens.

-- For awesome resources and up-to-date news items, visit our website at http://www.bhambuzz.org.
-- Check out our archives at http://www.bhambuzz.org/archives.htm.
-- Join our lively discussion group at http://www.bhambuzz.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi.
-- Subscribe at http://www.bhambuzz.org/subscribe.htm.

In this edition:

1) Editorial: Commission wisely rethinks failed standards for improving neighborhood streets
2) Editorial: Commission should rein in meetings
3) Editorial: Commission points anti-development steamroller straight at its own pet project
4) Ethics code proposal raises concerns
5) Editorial: Commissioners miss the point of a building inspector's job
6) Editorial: City needs to maintain momentum on long overdue improvements to Booth Park
7) To be removed, send a request to info@bhambuzz.org
{{PERIOD}}

1) Editorial: Commission wisely rethinks failed standards for improving neighborhood streets

March 28, 2002

The City Commission took a huge step Monday night toward making more intelligent decisions regarding street improvements when it decided to accept, but temporarily shelve, a petition by a group of Mill Pond area residents for improvements to Hazelwood and Oak streets.

The petition had been circulated for more than a year. A majority of residents of Hazelwood sought improvements to their block-long street. Joining their petition were several homeowners along Oak, between Hazelwood and Lakeside, who similarly favored improvements.

Problem was, the city Engineering Department didn't offer up many options. In fact, they didn't offer up any options at all. In keeping with city "standards," Hazelwood would have been "improved" by making it 26 feet wide with standard-issue white concrete curbs and gutters. Oak Street, which gets many times the traffic of Hazelwood, would have been left at around 21 feet. To top it off, the engineers threw in a sidewalk just a foot away from the fence in front of the cemetery. Little consideration was given to numerous mature "landmark" trees on the streets, whose root structures surely would be threatened by installation of storm sewers. Even less consideration was apparently given to the final resting places of a slew of Birmingham residents.

Without question, Hazelwood, Oak and most other streets in the Mill Pond area (bounded by Maple, N. Old Woodward, Oak and Lakeside) are a mess and need work. It's just that the standards by which so-called "unimproved" streets are improved are flawed in almost every respect.

The city requires homeowners along unimproved streets to pay for any improvements through special assessments. The reasoning? That's how it's always been done.
Once assessed, a property owner may spread the cost over 10 years. While the payment plan is nice, the idea that property owners should pay for the improvements is silly. The city doesn't pay to improve our homes; why should we pay to improve city streets? By that logic, homeowners should be allowed to decide, within reasonable limits, how the streets should be improved, and who should be allowed to use them. Yeah, right.

Since the city requires property owners to pay for the improvements, they require a petition to get the ball rolling. That puts the onus -- not to mention a considerable workload -- on property owners to do something that many of us think our tax bills ought to cover.

Since the city requires petitions, streets with relatively few homeowners have a much better shot at getting improved than densely populated streets. Hazelwood has less than a dozen homeowners. Ditto Willits between Ring Road and Greenwood, which was recently "improved" in a project that turned a nice country road in the middle of town into an ugly suburban drag strip.

Harmon, on the other hand, has petitioned the city twice in the past several years, each time presenting a majority of property owners, but each time rebuffed, the last time because by the time the required signatures were obtained, many were deemed to be "stale."

The whole process results in piecemeal solutions to what are neighborhood- and city-wide problems.

Once recognized, petitioners aren't given a whole lot of choices about street design. Width: 26 feet (unless the right-of-way won't accommodate it). Curbs: concrete.

Baldwin property owners recently withdrew a petition long in the works when the city told them it wouldn't negotiate the 26-foot street width. So even though the city gives lip service to the "character" of our neighborhoods, when it comes to street improvements, character appeared to be low on the agenda.

Until Monday.

That's when the commission (with member Dante Lanzetta noticeably absent and Commissioner Seth Chafetz leading the charge) sensibly discussed at length alternatives to most of these standards, and instructed the city engineers and the Mill Pond Neighborhood Association to study the matter and come back with some alternatives.

The city recently engaged a consulting firm to help with the design of Booth Park. They held two public workshops and produced several important documents that ultimately will help shape the outcome of the project. Total estimated project cost: under $1 million. The city's share: $400,000.

If the city does the right thing and tosses out its time-tested and failed methods for improving neighborhood streets, projects in the Mill Pond, Quarton Lake Estates and other areas could cost that and much, much more. So why not hire a consultant to help study this issue?


2) Editorial: Commission should rein in meetings

March 28, 2002

From the Birmingham Eccentric

The Birmingham City Commission meeting last week ended at about 2:15 a.m. -- some six hours after it began.

This is absurd.

No city commission, town council, school board, parks and recreation commission or any other official body should have meetings that run well past midnight. It is unfair to the board members as well as persons in the audience.

It's been our experience at endless droning, overlong meetings that at around 11 p.m. members of any board begin to get burned out. Past midnight, it's questionable if the board members are prepared to make reasonable decisions. After all, when your main concern is just to go home, how well can you concentrate at the business at hand?
It's a risky business to make critical decisions at 2 a.m. They may come back to bite you in court at a more decent hour.

And it's unfair to those who have business with the commission. No one should be required to wait three or more hours to have the opportunity to speak on an issue, or even to see what the commission does with an issue. Such interminable waits are insulting to the people.

Meetings can be shortened considerably by taking into account a few simple reminders. For example, it's not necessary for each commissioner to speak on every item. And some things don't bear repeating. If one commissioner has made a point, it's not necessary for another commissioner to repeat it. A point made is a point made. It will only be dulled by repetition.

After all, what really matters is how the commissioners vote. And there are even limits to public participation. The commission isn't required to listen to several people in a row say the same thing. The commission has the right to cut off debate when it is no longer productive.

If the commission cannot conclude its business in a reasonable time, it should schedule more meetings.

Then everyone can go home at a reasonable hour.


3) Editorial: Commission points anti-development steamroller straight at its own pet project

March 25, 2002

You've got to get a kick out of our Planning Board and Keystone (er, City) Commission. Last week, they sheepishly realized their anti-development steamroller was headed right in the direction of one of their own pet projects.

It took the better part of five years to plan and enact a new zoning district to encourage mixed-use affordable housing in the Eton Corridor. Once that was done, Crosswinds Communities applied for and received site plan approval for a significant new development of affordable live/work townhouses on a large tract of land adjacent to the rail line. The approval had conditions attached, however. The conditions have not yet been met, and a deadline is looming.

Normally, it wouldn't be a problem if the deadline passed. The developer could just reapply to the Planning Board.

Unfortunately, in their zeal to screw around with building heights, last month the Planning Board and Commission changed the rules. Now, Crosswinds' plans don't conform to current zoning regulations, and the Planning Board wouldn't have the authority to grant an approval.

Commissioner Russell Dixon suggested the Commission reconsider its earlier decision. That idea went over like a lead balloon.

So now, either the Planning Board extends the deadline for meeting its conditions, or Crosswinds faces a decision: Either they can apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, change their plans to conform with the new rules, pull out altogether or (you guessed it!) sue the city. Wouldn't that be a unique idea? A developer suing the city!

A majority of commissioners seems to support the project, but apparently none of them gave much thought to the effect of their actions when they changed the zoning rules.


4) Ethics code proposal raises concerns

March 24, 2002

From the Birmingham Eccentric

By Larry Ruehlen

Everyone who works for the city of Birmingham must be "loyal to the political objectives" of elected officials under an ethics ordinance being considered for adoption by the Birmingham City Commission.

"That particular item may present constitutional issues," said Birmingham City Manager Tom Markus. "But we expect it to go through changes. It's early on in the process."
He was referring to the "dedicated service" clause in the ethics ordinance, which in essence says that anyone who works for the city in any capacity must support the legislative actions of the elected officials.

In October 2001, the Presidents' Council of Homeowner Associations asked the Birmingham City Commission to adopt a code of ethics for city officials and employees.
Tim Bannister, then president of the organization, said a code was needed to end the "constant rumors circulating across our community regarding decisions and activities made by public officials -- both elected and appointed -- that appear to benefit special-interest groups."

The Presidents' Council wrote its own ethics ordinance using language from other municipalities and asked the commission to review it. City officials have been dealing with that language ever since and two different proposed ordinances have evolved. One is a edited version of the language the residents submitted and the other was a joint effort between Markus, City Attorney Tim Currier and City Commissioner Don Carney, who is also a lawyer.

Markus said the expectation is that such an ordinance would apply to every city employee including those with standing union contracts.

Birmingham City Commissioner Russell Dixon said Monday that he was only comfortable with the first few paragraphs and wanted to scrap the rest.

"It's far too intrusive for me to be comfortable with," he said. Dixon's motion died for lack of support, and the commission eventually agreed to let employees, officials and residents review the language of both documents and choose a favorite for the commission to consider further. Anyone who wants to comment will have 60 days to do so and the language will be listed on the city Web site.

Ethics ordinances are common in other cities and most have provisions that, among other things, require officials and employees to disclose outside business interests and refuse gifts in exchange for favors.

But the proposed language for Birmingham goes much further than that. One clause dictates that "all officials and employees of the city be loyal to the political objectives of the electorate." Markus said that section, as currently written, probably couldn't be strictly enforced.

Another part of the proposed ordinance precludes private conversations regarding official city business.

Shelli Weisberg, a Birmingham resident who works for the American Civil Liberties Union, said much of the language is too Draconian.

"This is painting with a very broad brush," she said. "Appointees to a board would be prohibited from putting a political sign supporting a presidential candidate in their own front yard."


5) Editorial: Commissioners miss the point of a building inspector's job

March 25, 2002

Ask any builder who works in Birmingham, and he'll tell you the city's building inspectors are as strict as they come.

Building Official Mary Ferrario proudly claims her people are the strictest in the state, and that most builders add a "Birmingham factor" to the cost of any job they do here to compensate for the extra cost of compliance.

Contrast these views with those of City Commissioners Gordon Thorsby, Seth Chafetz, Donald Carney and Dante Lanzetta, who have publicly chided the Community Development Department for lax enforcement of city ordinances.

What's up with that?

By almost all informed accounts, the building department takes very seriously its responsibility for enforcing building codes. These are the laws and standards governing structural and mechanical design and engineering. They help protect the occupants of new and refurbished buildings from floods, fires, structural collapse and other calamities. The people who enforce these rules are highly skilled individuals who every day peer into the guts of a building to insure that corners aren't cut, safety isn't compromised and nothing potentially dangerous is buried beneath the sheathing and drywall that ultimately conceal the structural and mechanical components of a building.

It is not their job to enforce parking laws and protect trees, no matter how egregious the violations.

We can think of no greater insult to an honest, highly trained building inspector than to suggest that he or she has compromised his or her integrity, and thus the safety of the buildings and occupants he or she is paid to protect.

Yet, in their misguided quest to micromanage more and more of our city's administration, this is exactly what these commissioners do. They're like bad managers who haven't a clue about what their subordinates are really supposed to be doing.

When Commissioners Thorsby, Chafetz, Carney and Lanzetta and their loyal followers criticize our building officials, they don't complain about the all-important code enforcement that makes Birmingham a safe place to live and work. They don't enter the structures, crawl around basements and attics, and find potentially deadly building violations overlooked by lax enforcers.

No. They drive by building sites with cameras in hand and photograph dubious "violations" that have little or nothing to do with a building inspector's true -- and gravely serious -- day-to-day responsibilities. Their inspections are superficial, their complaints (mostly about how construction vehicles are parked) are petty, and their political grandstanding is transparent. Their lack of perspective and eagerness to foster animosity, while wasting our valuable time and money, should be lamented by all reasonable residents -- especially those who voted for them expecting intelligent governance.

These are relatively simple problems with relatively simple solutions.

If a car or truck is illegally parked, and the cops haven't ticketed it, call them. If our Commissioners feel the cops aren't doing their job (and none has made that claim), then take the cops to task, not the building officials.

We have to wonder how much of this animosity toward the Community Development Department is motivated by personal grudges against department managers, or by singleminded adherence to the -ism against development. Clearly, it isn't motivated by good sense or reason.

If Thorsby, Chafetz, Carney, Lanzetta and their cronies were sincere about fixing what they see wrong, they'd first publicly thank our lucky stars for the building codes and city inspectors who enforce them, and for the relative quality and safety of the commercial and residential buildings in town.

Then they'd do something constructive -- like make sure that legitimate complaints about legitimate violations from legitimately aggrieved residents are addressed by the appropriate people in a timely and appropriate way.


6) Editorial: City needs to maintain momentum on long overdue improvements to Booth Park

March 22, 2002

The Birmingham City Commission took an important step Monday night in approving an application for a Michigan Department of Natural Resources grant to help pay for improvements to Booth Park.

The park, if you can call it that, is at the corner of N. Old Woodward and Harmon. It is a municipal gem that has suffered from severe neglect over most of the past decade. Deeded to the city in 1943 by the Cranbrook Foundation, the park is a study in unachieved potential. It sits near our city's northern gateway. It forms the gateway and is an essential element of the city's Holy Name neighborhood, which teems with families. It borders both the Central Business District and Gallery Row. The Rouge River runs through it, and it is the northern terminus of a chip trail that runs along the river and continues, with several interruptions, all the way to Linden Park on the south side of town. (The trail itself is a study in unachieved potential, but that's another story.)

For all this potential, what do we have? The riverbank is a mess, and virtually unapproachable. There are virtually no shade trees in the park. A yellow plastic play structure, a water fountain, and a couple of park benches are the only "amenities" on the property. Since the park was torn up in 1994, anything you could reasonably call "turf" has been virtually non-existent. Even though the park borders the Central Business District, you can't get there from here. Hundreds of residents and office workers within walking distance would use the park for a picnic area (and there are at least two businesses selling take-out food adjacent to the park) if only a picnic area existed.

The grant application helped goose the Commission, which normally moves on such matters with the speed of a tectonic plate. The application followed approval last year of a Recreation Master Plan (which itself was long overdue) and a bond issue that will provide up to $25 million for land acquisition and improvements to our park system.

During the public hearing required by the grant application, several commissioners and citizens voiced concerns that the improvement process might have been rushed. Considering that neighborhood residents have been agitating for several years for improvements to the park, that valuable (and surprisingly unanimous) community input was received during development of the master plan and during a couple of workshops focusing specifically on Booth Park, that the plans were carefully considered by the Parks Board and the city's design consultant, Wade-Trim, and that the concept plan and development budget submitted with the grant application are merely concept plans, and can and must be significantly refined, the process could be considered "rushed" only by someone better suited to affecting geologic, rather than municipal change.

There's still a lot of work to be done, and the city needs to keep the ball rolling -- whether or not the grant is received. The total budget for the project is just over $700,000, with the city promising to put up $400,000 of that. Even if the grant request is denied, the city can easily afford the whole amount with proceeds from the bond issue. But let's hope the grant request is approved, since it requires that the project be completed within two years, and without that pressure, we could all be old and gray before anything happens to the park.

Whatever the outcome of the grant application, the concept plan needs refinement, with continued citizen input, and the city needs to follow up on community requests to involve Cranbrook in the project.

Furthermore, work should proceed on several elements not included in the grant application. The river trail to Linden Park is one such element. Another important element suggested in the design workshops was a pair of bridges over the river linking the park to N. Old Woodward and the Willits Street parking lot adjacent to the First Baptist Church and Jacobsons. These bridges not only would provide important linkages to the city, but would also provide important river linkages, which don't exist in the concept plan as submitted to the state. Wade-Trim wisely suggested leaving the bridges out of the grant application, because they would involve complicated soil and engineering analyses, additional grant money might be available to help pay for them, and planning for them may dovetail with planning for a N. Old Woodward boulevard median, and future use of the Willits St. parking lot. Regardless of whether these elements were included in the grant application, the city should move forward on them.

7) To be removed, send a request to info@bhambuzz.org.