------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BIRMINGHAM BUZZ
"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right
to speak, write, or to publish their sentiments." -- James Madison
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buzz # 23 -- June 13, 2002

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

VISIT OUR WEBSITE at http://www.bhambuzz.org for:
-- Up-to-date news items
-- Resources such as the 2016 Plan and the proposed Ethics ordinance.
-- A calendar of important city events
-- A lively and intelligent discussion group

We want to hear from you! Please send questions, suggestions and feedback to info@bhambuzz.org
{{PERIOD}}
In this edition:

1) Tree ordinance too broad, commission says
2) Residents shred tree law: City will revise it
3) Editorial: Commission picks cronyism over safety in rejecting MDOT's Woodward plan
4) Editorial: Recrafting of the tree law welcome
5) Letter to Eccentric: Keep trees healthy
6) Letter to Eccentric: Lot # 7 issue resurfaces
7) Editorial: City should jump at rare chance to develop gateway at Woodward & Maple
8) Leaning Tower: Can tottering music chain find a new hit?
9) Next Buzz Forum to feature prominent scholar
10) To be removed, send email to info@bhambuzz.org


1) Tree ordinance too broad, commission says

June 11, 2002

The Birmingham City Commission, heeding the call from citizens to narrow the focus of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance, sent the ordinance back to the committee that developed it Monday night.

About 100 citizens turned out for a public hearing on the ordinance. More than a dozen spoke out, and both supporters and detractors seemed to agree that construction poses the greatest threat to trees in the city.

Even many of those in favor of the ordinance echoed concerns from those in opposition that the ordinance may stray too far into the property rights of homeowners.


2) Residents shred tree law: City will revise it

June 13, 2002

From the Birmingham Eccentric

By Larry Ruehlen

Residential opposition all but killed a tree preservation ordinance before it could take root in Birmingham.

"I love my trees and take care of them, and I don't need the commission to tell me what to do," said Birmingham resident Bob North. "...What we are looking at would be a bureaucratic boondoggle."

North's comment received a round of applause, but Birmingham Mayor Dianne McKeon nipped further displays of emotion in the bud by asking everyone to keep quiet.

North was just one of many residents who told the Birmingham City Commission to back off Monday during a public hearing on a proposed 19-page tree preservation ordinance. While a smaller group of residents supported the ordinance and talked about the need for quick adoption and strict enforcement, a clear majority of people in the packed commission chamber said the ordinance went too far.

Before the hearing, residents heard a 45-minute presentation that spelled out the basics of the proposal. Gary Kulak, chairman of the Birmingham Planning Board, said it wouldn't affect the average homeowner as people wouldn't have to pull a permit to prune a tree. But City Commissioner Rackeline Hoff didn't take his word for it, and Kulak later said that permits would be required when pruning altered a tree.

City experts and consultants said residents would, in some cases, have to pay thousands of dollars to replace trees cut down on private property. They also said strict guidelines would be established to protect trees during construction and $100 fines would be meted out to people who illegally chopped down "landmark" trees.

Ann Bray was the only resident who said the ordinance didn't go far enough. She said the commission had to remember that the intent was to save trees for future generations. "Where do private property rights end and public rights kick in? said Bray. "The city has virtually been deforested... I think the ordinance should be strengthened."

When the public quit talking the commission started. Commissioner Dante Lanzetta Jr. took to task the committee that drafted the ordinance for using parts of many existing ordinances. He said the result was an ordinance that missed the mark. He also said the city should go back to the original intent and try to find a way to prevent damage to trees on city property. He also warned that trees on private property couldn't be protected from the chainsaws of developers unless the commission was willing to infringe on the rights of everyone equally.

Commissioner Seth Chafetz summed up his frustration.

"My head is kind of spinning," said Chafetz. "I have no idea what to do with the ordinance at this point." What the commission did was send it back to city staff for revision. City Attorney Tim Currier and City Manager Tom Markus were asked to see if they could write an ordinance to protect trees on public property and prevent trees on private property from being damaged by the actions of a neighbor.

Markus said bringing in legal counsel was a good idea because writing such an ordinance won't be easy.

"Legal precedent is clear," said Markus. "And you can't treat people differently."


3) Editorial: Commission picks cronyism over safety in rejecting MDOT's Woodward plan

June 11, 2002

We aren't big supporters of a recall against certain members of the City Commissioner, but if we were, Monday night's vote against a Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) plan to fix the broken intersection at Woodward and Lincoln would be near the top of our indictment.

Remember these names: Dante Lanzetta, Seth Chafetz, Dianne McKeon, Gordon Thorsby and Donald Carney.

In the most blatant display of cronyism and cowardice in the history of this infamous commission, these five people:

* Belittled experts from MDOT and data that demonstrates the danger in the intersection;
* Ignored the recommendations of Birmingham's top two police officials.
* Twisted the intent of the 2016 Plan to suit their political objectives.
* Turned down an opportunity to have the state subsidize the next phase of the Woodward Avenue Median Improvement Project.
* Perhaps worst of all, grossly and negligently ignored a clear threat to our safety, rejecting MDOT's solution without offering a single alternative, or taking any steps to see that an alternative is developed.

You'd have to see it to believe it.

Unfortunately, most of the hundred or so citizens who turned out Monday night for the public hearing on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance had left the room by the time the folks from MDOT appeared.

Fortunately, you can catch replays of the insanity on Comcast's Channel 15. Here's the schedule: June 15 at 6 p.m.; June 16 at 6 p.m.; June 18 at 6 p.m. (The discussion occurred more than two hours into the meeting, so plan accordingly.)

The story goes something like this:

The state, which is responsible for Woodward Avenue, has a computer system that monitors accident data supplied by police and compares it against basic information about the locations of the accidents. Taking into account such data as traffic volume and speeds, the computer figures roughly how many accidents of various types are likely to occur at a given location. A certain number are expected and accepted. But when actual numbers far exceed what is expected or acceptable, bells and whistles go off.

That's what happened a while back with the intersection of Woodward and Lincoln, where traffic going south on Old Woodward at 25 miles per hour merges with traffic going south on Woodward at 45 miles per hour. An unusually high number of sideswipe accidents was noted, most involving property damage, and some involving injuries.

So MDOT came up with a plan to fix it. But since the plan involves Old Woodward, for which the city is responsible, MDOT needed the city's approval to do the work.

For southbound traffic on Old Woodward, the proposal would have:

* Eliminated the merge at Lincoln.
* Allowed right turns only at Lincoln and Old Woodward.
* Forced traffic bound for Woodward to turn left into the median between Woodward and Old Woodward, then make a right onto Woodward.

For northbound traffic on Woodward headed for Old Woodward, the proposal would have:

* Narrowed the wide break in the Woodward median, into which traffic exits from the left lanes.
* Sharpened the angle at which traffic crosses Woodward, so that it crosses at more of a right angle.

The proposal would have calmed traffic on Old Woodward, and created a narrower roadway between Lincoln and the new entrance point to Woodward. It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was the best anyone brought to the table. And it came closer to achieving the objectives of the 2016 Plan than the current configuration.

MDOT officials even indicated they would be willing to work with the city on landscaping the area to be pedestrian friendly. That sounded like an offer to help pay for the next phase of the Woodward Median Improvement Project, the first phase of which is under construction between Oakland and Brown.

Oh, did we forget to say? The whole project wasn't going to cost the city a dime. MDOT was prepared to pay for the whole thing, estimated to cost around $150,000. Bob Lariviere, one of the MDOT representatives, said it was the first time in more than 30 years with MDOT that a community had turned down a safety improvement for which MDOT would pay.

So what went wrong?

Simple: Paul Reagan, the Presidents Council chairman who helped get Lanzetta, Chafetz, McKeon, Thorsby and Carney elected or re-elected to the commission, lives at 997 Purdy, just off Landon, in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed project. He was against it. He thought it would drive traffic into his neighborhood, and he called in a debt.

To their credit, Commissioners Russell Dixon and Rackeline Hoff again showed the only signs of intelligent life on the commission, voting in favor of the proposal.

The MDOT officials and many others present could only shake their heads in bewilderment and mutter comments like "ridiculous" and "unbelievable."

We should all be ashamed and embarrassed. We are affluent and intelligent, yet we are governed by a commission woefully lacking in leadership and reason.

We'll pass on a recall. But in the next two elections, we won't forget the names Dante Lanzetta, Seth Chafetz, Dianne McKeon, Gordon Thorsby and Donald Carney.


4) Editorial: Recrafting of the tree law welcome

June 13, 2002

From the Birmingham Eccentric

It's likely the Birmingham tree ordinance is dead, at least as written.

On Monday it was consigned by the city commission back to the city staff for further review where it will wither and be trimmed to a more acceptable length and scope.

Then at some point it will resurface, crafted in a more reasonable fashion and likely will win quiet approval by the commission.

All this is as it should be.

The proposed tree ordinance was a mess. It toyed with personal property rights, virtually insulted residents with the threat of penalties for things they did on their own property and outraged some residents.

Lost in all the rhetoric and fireworks was a core of logic. Tree ordinances can be useful tools for a community to use to protect its trees. Towns across the country have successfully implemented tree ordinances, but the key to having a good tree law is to craft one that is specific to a community. That means taking into account the nature of the community.

It is not necessary to have a strict tree ordinance in a community like Birmingham because residents already place a high value on their trees and aren't going to clear-cut the neighborhoods.

Where Birmingham ran afoul with its tree ordinance is that, at its roots, it was being viewed as a tool by some to control development. Trees could prove to be another obstacle to a developer eyeing a site and make a project that much more difficult to build.

But that's not what a tree ordinance should be about. It should be there to protect the beauty and natural resources of a community, not serve as a tool of those with their own agenda.

It should protect old growth that might be chopped down by someone seeking to improve the view of a street or because the owner doesn't like raking up leaves.

It should be there to protect lots from being bought by builders who want to clear the property just to re-sell. Other communities have found the medium of balancing property rights with protection. Birmingham can too.

The city should craft a tree ordinance that does what a tree ordinance is supposed to do.

Nothing more, nothing less.


5) Letter to Eccentric: Keep trees healthy

June 13, 2002

Since the Birmingham Commission has taken such an interest in the health and safety of publicly and privately owned trees within the city of Birmingham, I would like to add a few suggestions to the tree ordinance. First we should outlaw the use of lawn fertilizers, weed control chemicals and insect pesticides.

This cannot be good for the health of any tree absorbing these toxic chemicals through polluted ground water. Also, the use of these noisy, smoky, two-cycle engines to cut, edge, trim and sweep lawns must be stopped. The oily pollution and piercing noise of these machines must certainly bother many of the trees in this city. And you know, while we're at it, we should make all Birmingham restaurants smoke-free. The cigarette smoke wafting out of these establishments must certainly affect the respiration of the trees in the downtown area.

I am actually serious about all of these proposals. It is just obvious to me that if you substitute the word "children," "child" of "Birmingham resident(s)" in the previous paragraph for the word "trees," all of these proposals make quite a bit of sense to protect the health of Birmingham residents, including trees.

Steven E. Baggette
Birmingham


6) Letter to Eccentric: Lot #7 issue resurfaces

June 13, 2002

Ah! The issue of Lot 7 -- once again. I attended the charettes when Mr. Duany first designed the 2016 plan. My memory is that one of our own citizens suggested reclaiming Lot 7 as part of an expanded city center with a permanent band shell mimicking the matching facades of the library and city hall.

That idea prompted a parking study. It was found that angle parking surrounding both green spaces added up to only 20 parking spots less than Lot 7. Underground parking would be a great solution. My fear is that trying to implement that idea is what spirals this Lot 7 reclamation effort out of economic control and into debacles like the previous "Wintergarden" concept.

How about valet service? How about designating all parking spots along both green spaces in front of The Community House to The Community House exclusively, including lots of handicap spots? How about better use of other entrances to The Community House that are closer to the parking deck?

Reclamation of a parking lot into an expanded park must certainly qualify as a "Clear and direct benefit from an improvement" to all citizens of Birmingham, not just Community House users. After all, Birmingham does have five parking decks, one almost behind the Community House.

Rochelle Forester
Birmingham


7) Editorial: City should jump at rare chance to develop gateway at Woodward & Maple

June 10, 2002

The former Shell station at the corner of Maple and Woodward is for sale.

The Downtown Birmingham 2016 Plan makes some very specific suggestions for developing the site as part of a gateway to the city:

"One of the main entrances to Birmingham's Central Business District is on Maple Road and Hunter Boulevard, which is currently flanked by two gasoline stations."

"As a site for a more urban building, the lot north of Maple is too small to contain its own on-site parking, but the Park Street Garage is near enough to fulfill the need. The site to the south is substantially larger. It is adequate, not only for a habitable building, but for a substantial parking deck. The portions of these sites' buildings, which front Maple as a pair, could form a significant gateway to downtown. Each building should be designed with reference to the other; they should share a similar height, massing and, as much as possible, architectural syntax."

"The City should attempt to secure and hold the half-block circumscribed by Maple, Brownell and Hunter, because it is the last block capable of containing a substantial parking deck for downtown expansion. This block and the block to the north (across Maple) should be carefully scrutinized at the time of their development. The City should encourage these developments to have reciprocal buildings, capable of forming a gateway to the CBD."

"The procedures used to implement the previous generation of parking decks may be dusted off and analyzed for continued applicability."

"Concerning the twin buildings proposed: They are so rare in the United States that, if Birmingham were to conjure up a pair like the ones illustrated, they may well become a regional or even a national landmark."

Clearly, the property is worthy of something more significant than a gas station.

Unfortunately, at least one prominent developer has passed on it for several reasons, not the least of which is the hostility toward development of some members of the City Commission and Planning Board.

The developer, a highly respected member of Birmingham's business community, has the vision and wherewithal to develop the site appropriately. What he lacks is any sense that city officials will cooperate in making any vision a reality.

That's too bad.

If many of the 2016 Plan's most important elements are to be implemented, the city is going to need some leadership, and that leadership is going to have to be courageous, and cooperate with private developers.

Imagine this:

The city buys the property with money from the $25 million parks bond issue. The site is inexpensively developed as a temporary urban park until more land can be optioned and a development of the sort envisioned by the 2016 Plan can be arranged.

Within a couple of years, after the plan comes together, the property has appreciated in value. The city then sells it to the private developer, most likely at a profit, and pays off the bond.

Or imagine this:

A respected city official known for an ability to make things happen approaches a private developer. "Let's do something worthwhile for the city," he or she suggests.

The availability of the Shell property may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Can our City Commission and Planning Board help take advantage of it?


8) Leaning Tower: Can tottering music chain find a new hit?

June 10, 2002

From Forbes Magazine

Russell Solomon is a legend in music retailing. The earthy founder and chairman of the 42-year-old Tower Records chain helped usher in the superstore era with his 20,000-square-foot-plus shops whose endless racks were manna to music fans in big cities. Two years ago Tower had 194 stores and was expanding overseas. There was even talk about taking the company public.

But Solomon, 76, miscalculated. Underestimating the threat posed by the Internet, he loaded up on debt to fund his expansion and build bigger stores with even larger inventories. Now he's having trouble paying his bills. In April, faced with a cash squeeze and a recent debt level 99 times equity, Tower's privately held parent, MTS Inc., asked for a two-month extension on a $150 million loan. It was forced to renegotiate its short-term debt twice last year, and the company's $110 million (face value) bonds, demoted by both Standard & Poor's and Moody's to low-grade junk, recently traded at 36 cents on the dollar.

"It's circling the drain," says Jack Colombo, editor of Income Securities Advisor.

What happened? Solomon can blame Wall Street malaise for derailing his plans for a stock offering. But it's his fault for not anticipating the threat from online vendors and Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy. Tower's decentralized corporate structure made reining in costs difficult. It lost $90 million in fiscal 2001 following a $10 million loss in 2000.

Now Solomon is in retreat. As part of a restructuring plan, he closed 23 weak stores last year and converted a half-dozen locations in Argentina, Hong Kong and Taiwan into franchises.

In April he agreed to sell Tower's 51 Japanese outlets to a Tokyo investment firm for $122 million. The cash infusion should help the company pay off its short-term debt. But the Japanese stores were among the most profitable in Solomon's stable, according to Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Colin McGranahan.

Solomon declined to be interviewed. But in a March statement his son Michael said that the company, after refinancing its short-term debt, "will be in a strong position to embrace the revival of the American economy and embark on a slow and steady domestic expansion... ."

The cost-cutting has reduced overhead by two percentage points to 24.5% of sales, but with the music business suffering its worst slump in two decades, it will be hard for Tower to embrace a revival of any kind. As of May, music sales in the U.S. were down 9% from last year. Piracy is still a major distribution channel on college campuses.

"Tower still has a chance," says Barry Sosnick, an analyst with Fahnestock & Co. "I'm not saying it's a great chance."

BY THE NUMBER

$13.7 billion in U.S. music sales in 2001.

41% Proportion of music bought in non-music stores.

23% Proportion of music bought in non-music stores in 1991.

$1.1 billion in fiscal 2001 revenue for Tower.

34% Proportion of Tower's 2001 revenues generated by stores in Japan.


9) Next Buzz Forum to feature review of important issues facing Birmingham

If discussion of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance got you interested in the conduct of Birmingham city government, don't miss the next Birmingham Buzz Community Forum. Mark your calendars now for 4-7 p.m. Tuesday, June 25, at the Community House. The forum will feature Lawrence W. Reed, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, along with updates and discussion of important issues facing the City of Birmingham.


10) To be removed, send email to info@bhambuzz.org