-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BIRMINGHAM BUZZ
"It's the 2016 Plan, stupid."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buzz # 35 -- Jan. 16, 2003

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.
-- A lively and (usually) intelligent discussion group

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

1) Proposed parking changes draw fire
2) Opinion: Office parking idea is overreaction that would send city straight into losing battle
3) Opinion: Officials must act responsibly
4) Letter to Eccentric: Revamp the PSD
5) Letter to Eccentric: Sidewalk an insult
6) Long-range planning agenda is posted; Includes PSD report and latest Duany sketch for Shain Park
7) To be removed, send email to info@bhambuzz.org


1) Proposed parking changes draw fire

Jan 16, 2003

From the Birmingham Eccentric

By Larry Ruehlen

Forcing office buildings to provide their own parking could damage the historic nature of the city and be a safety threat to pedestrians.

That was the opinion voiced by urban planner Robert Gibbs, who helped write the Downtown Birmingham 2016 development plan. He was speaking at the joint meeting of the city commission and planning board in response to the planning board's proposal to influence what gets built downtown.

"We are going to lose the historic character of the city," Gibbs said. "We will continue to get buildings on stilts or office buildings surrounded by parking lots ... it would bring more cars into the central business district and create a serious hazard to pedestrians and discourage shopping in the downtown area."

In 2001, the planning board began exploring ways to deal with potential parking shortages. A proposal to increase parking requirements for some restaurants failed, and the board next targeted office uses. The intent was to prohibit future offices from paying into the city's parking assessment district and force them to provide their own parking downtown.

Birmingham City Commissioner Rackeline Hoff struck a cautious tone as well.

"This discussion started in 2001, and I believe the situation is a lot different today than it was," she said. "At that time, Jacobson's was flourishing and we were all promoting retail and residential downtown ... look at what's happening now. Retail is not doing so well, and we have residential buildings sitting empty. In my opinion, we should take the current situation into consideration."

Gibbs said noted planner Andres Duany, the author of the 2016 plan, wanted people to park in the structures and walk through town. If the parking changes are made, future office users would park in a surface or underground lot, go to work, then go home without ever stepping foot downtown. And that prospect undermines the premise that increased foot traffic is the lifeblood of a vital downtown, Gibbs said.

The comments were made as the commission and planning board discussed strategy for the coming year. Planning board Chairman Gary Kulak said the board wasn't trying to discourage developers from building offices downtown and was in fact focused on leveling the playing field between parking requirements for residential and office uses.

However, a review of the minutes of past board meetings contradicts his statement. On July 17, 2002, according to the minutes, Kulak said: "The board does not want to encourage more office."

On August 14, 2002, board member Willem Tazelaar said: "Since office requires a greater amount of parking, the discouragement of office would be good."

Also on Aug. 14, Nicholas Lomacko, a city consultant hired to put the planning board's directives into action, said the new ordinance was intended to "discourage the promotion of office use by requiring them to provide on-site parking."

The city's legal department has been asked to write several opinions on the matter. More than once, Kulak has said the city's legal opinions didn't answer the questions he asked. The latest opinion will deal with whether the city can require future office users to provide entirely new parking with or without giving them credit for paying into the parking assessment district.

Current office buildings would be grandfathered in, but new ones would have to pay for their own parking -- a vexing possibility to developers.

"I just don't think Gary Kulak understands how parking works in this town," developer Edward Fuller said. "It's not like we pay the assessment in return for designated spaces in the structures. Business owners still have to buy parking permits ... the board doesn't understand the history of these decisions."

Fuller, a local developer who recently purchased the former Jacobson's store on Maple Road, said he bought the building with the expectation that the previous parking taxes paid by Jacobson's gave the building's owner the right to be included in the parking assessment district. That right should continue, Fuller said, and there is no practical way to provide additional on-site parking for Jacobson's store.

Brian Blaesing, a member of the board, has expressed concerns that the change would stop construction of office buildings and that the move could be seen as an attempt to ensure offices are not built on either of the former Jacobson's store sites.

Kulak said one option to address the parking shortage would be for future developments to help the city pay for new parking structures.

Jeff Salz, chairman of the city's parking advisory commitee, said the city would have a parking shortage of 1,900 spaces when the city is built to its full capacity.


2) Opinion: Office parking idea is overreaction that would send city straight into losing battle

Jan. 16, 2003

If the recent Planning Board proposal to require on-site parking for new offices downtown isn't dead yet, it should be.

The intent of the proposal may have been good, but the proposal wasn't.

Here's the issue:

The 2016 Plan suggests -- and many observers agree -- that there is an imbalance downtown between the amount of office space and the amount of retail and residential space. They'd like to correct the imbalance.

For the sake of argument, we're going to accept that notion, even though it may be flawed. Why? First of all, offices bring people into town -- people who shop in stores, eat in restaurants, drink in bars, and so on. Second, one might argue that we ought to fill the retail and residential vacancies that exist before we try to promote more.

But forget logic (that stuff on which most businesspeople base their real-life decisions) and, like our Planning Board, blue-sky it for a moment. In a perfect world (such as that envisioned by Planning Board members, most of whom have never made a real-life development decision), we would have a perfect balance of fully occupied retail, residential and office space. Since we don't have that balance, we have to DO SOMETHING.

What to do?

Well, you have a choice. You can:

1) Encourage residential and retail development.
2) Discourage office development.
3) Do both of the above.
4) Do neither of the above, and allow the market to work.

The Planning Board, led by Chairman Gary Kulak, rejected (4) above, most likely because it would have gone against their instinct to DO SOMETHING. Good decision; bad reason. Right reason: Letting the market decide is like giving your kid the keys to the candy store. Offices are Birmingham's candy. We have so many of them because they are so in demand.

Keeping the analogy alive, if you want your kid to eat good food, you do it by encouraging him to eat what's going to make him grow up healthy and strong. You don't punish him for eating candy. (That would be an overreaction that would alienate him, screw up your relationship and make it difficult or impossible to get anything accomplished.) You just limit the amount of candy he's allowed to have. And you make it a reward (dessert!) for eating well.

Translate that to the development question, and the answer is obvious. You correct the imbalance between office and retail/residential by encouraging the latter. Discouraging office isn't going to do any good, and may do harm. (The harm would be that it would simply turn away developers, which is why so many people are questioning the true motives behind this proposal.) If you were sincere about correcting the imbalance, and encouraging development of a particular sort, you would make office the dessert.

Which is why four- and five-story buildings are important to a town like Birmingham. If you want first-floor retail, and you want to encourage at least one or two stories of residential, you're going to have to give the developer at least one floor of office space. The "dessert" is the office is the developer's profit.

That's what Birmingham's so-called "overlay" zoning ordinance, an outgrowth of the 2016 Plan, attempted to do -- until the anti-everything powers-that-be got their mitts on it and the development process. First they squeezed building heights, and took the profit potential out of anything built under the ordinance. (Remember, the overlay ordinance is optional. Developers don't have to use it. They can still opt to use the far inferior "underlay" zoning rules, which do little to further the goals of the 2016 Plan.) Then they made the development process so cumbersome, and so antagonistic, that only the most masochistic of developers would even think of running the gauntlet.

But back to the issue at hand. The Planning Board went beyond simply attempting to encourage retail/residential, and chose (3) above, in effect deciding to discourage office development as well as encourage retail/residential.

To make matters worse, the proposed tool for discouraging office use was parking. Make the office developers provide parking, the logic goes, and they'll stop developing offices. Maybe, but in all likelihood they'll stop developing anything at all. (Remember the motive question? You have to ask if this isn't the goal after all!)

Problem is, making developers of new office space provide onsite parking is most likely illegal, would surely send the city straight to court, and end up costing taxpayers a bundle to fight yet another losing battle.

Why? Because many years ago, a bunch of very smart city fathers (unlike the crew we're stuck with now), devised a plan for funding a series of municipal parking decks. It compelled property owners to pay for the decks in return for the benefit (parking!) they'd receive, and the promise that they wouldn't have to provide parking of their own, unless they so desired. Whether you owned a building, or just an empty lot that might eventually contain a building, you had to pay. It was an ingenious plan. It helped define the character of downtown, it is why our downtown remained strong while many other downtowns failed, and it's the kind of thing you can't undo.

Downtown property owner Ted Fuller estimates he paid more than $1 million into the fund over 10 years. He -- and many other property owners -- will be damned if the city changes the rules now. They'd go to court immediately -- and win.

If the simple logic of the situation isn't enough, why not take the word of the attorneys, planners and other professionals we pay to advise us? A group of them got together a few months ago and decided the only way to accomplish the Planning Board goal would be to eliminate entirely offices as an allowable use downtown -- a move that would render all existing offices non-conforming, a patently ridiculous proposition. Not one, but two opinions from the city attorney bolstered this view.

All of this says nothing of the enormously negative impacts (those pesky unintended consequences that our policymakers don't want to hear about) that would result from forcing offices to provide parking. Imagine our core business district peppered with buildings on stilts, with parking lots -- and cars entering and exiting -- lining our streets. If the 2016 Plan was firm on anything, it was the genius and value of our parking system, and how it allows crucial uninterrupted retail development, and forces parking and cars to the perimeter.

One more note, which adds a bit of pathetic levity to an otherwise lamentable story: The Planning Board's proposed ordinance language, which was submitted to the city attorney for review, was poorly drafted, and didn't even accomplish the board's goal. If approved, it wouldn't have changed a thing!

But anyone paying close attention knew what the board was up to, and it was no good.


3) Opinion: Officials must act responsibly

Jan. 16, 2003

From the Birmingham Eccentric

Stop it. Just stop it.

Like children prodding at an ant hill, the Birmingham City Commission and planning board seem intent on stirring up trouble in areas that should be left alone.

The commission is toying with a liquor license being sought by an establishment that wants to operate at 201 E. Hamilton.

The planning board is considering a proposal to change requirements for parking at new offices in town.

In both cases, the city attorney raised a red flag that the city was on dubious legal ground.

But it often seems that the attorney's opinion carries no weight with the majority of commissioners and board members -- especially when it doesn't jibe with their intentions. Gary Kulak, chairman of the planning board, recently challenged the city's legal opinion on office parking.

Both of these cases could have serious consequences for the city. Denying a liquor license without solid reasons surely will invite a lawsuit. Tinkering with parking regulations could cause the company planning to buy the second Jacobson's store on North Old Woodward to back out of the deal. And it's uncertain what impact it would have on the Jacobson's store on Maple, which is likely going to be developed into office space by Edward Fuller.

Demolition has already begun there, and to throw roadblocks up at this stage of the process is another invitation for a lawsuit. Fuller and some city officials already are on poor terms, stemming from the last city election. Any move that would disrupt his business plans without clear legal backing could be interpreted as revenge by city officials.

The city has an attorney to provide guidance and keep the city out of trouble. To ignore his advice is reckless and dangerous.

Birmingham already is developing a reputation as a bad place to do business. To foster that view would be callous and irresponsible on the part of city officials. And to embroil the city in expensive lawsuits without just cause would be disgraceful.

City officials have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the city regardless of their personal views.


4) Letter to Eccentric: Revamp the PSD

Jan 16, 2003

When considering what and why Jacobson's did not make it, please consider a couple of factors. Compare their business plan with the successful stores.

It was obvious several years ago Jacobson's was in trouble. They could only report a profit in the fourth quarter! How can you stay in business when you lose money three quarters out of four? Obviously this was the fault of Jacobson's management, not the city of Birmingham government.

What is the Principal Shopping District (PSD) doing to bring a profitable business into Adams Square where Farmer Jack gave up quite some time ago? I think the PSD needs to be completely revamped and be judged on accomplishments, not how many people they can pack into a City Commission room where their future is questioned.

Ralph Seger
Birmingham


5) Letter to Eccentric: Sidewalk an insult

Jan. 16, 2003

It appears the Birmingham City Commission is in the process of rethinking some the decisions that were reached this past year. I am hopeful they will revisit the "sidewalk to nowhere." It appears the only people who support this folly is the commission. They seem unwilling to listen to the residents regarding this issue. I have used the Adams Road bridge for over 35 years and I cannot recall ever seeing anyone, on foot, actually crossing this bridge.

With revenue cuts looming I would hope that a little belt-tightening would be in order with priorities and absolute necessities addressed first. The estimated $574,500 expenditure is an insult to rational thinking individuals as well as to taxpayers. For a commission that is so concerned about the trees in our city perhaps consideration could be given to using the sidewalk dollars for planting more and larger replacement trees throughout the community for everyone to enjoy and not cutting down those in the path of the proposed sidewalk.

With the Dutch elm beetle and the ash borer destroying our residential neighborhoods we will need more and more replacement trees. Those pathetic little replacement trees that the city plants will take years and years to mature and return neighborhoods to their former glory.

Shirley White
Birmingham


6) Long-range planning agenda is posted; Includes PSD report and latest Duany sketch for Shain Park

Jan. 15, 2003

The City of Birmingham has posted the agenda for the City Commission's upcoming Jan. 25 long-range planning session. The agenda includes a report from the Principal Shopping District and the latest sketch by designer Andres Duany for a reworked Shain Park.

The PSD is expected to come under fire at the meeting from Commissioner Donald Carney and others for its actions and expenditures.

The preliminary design for Shain Park incorporates the site of the surface parking lot adjacent to the Community House.

Visit http://ci.birmingham.mi.us/AgendasMinutes/Commission/Agenda/2003/commagenda03.pdf to read or download the agenda.

1) Proposed parking changes draw fire
2) Opinion: Office parking idea is overreaction that would send city straight into losing battle
3) Opinion: Officials must act responsibly
4) Letter to Eccentric: Revamp the PSD
5) Letter to Eccentric: Sidewalk an insult


1) Proposed parking changes draw fire

Jan 16, 2003

From the Birmingham Eccentric

By Larry Ruehlen

Forcing office buildings to provide their own parking could damage the historic nature of the city and be a safety threat to pedestrians.

That was the opinion voiced by urban planner Robert Gibbs, who helped write the Downtown Birmingham 2016 development plan. He was speaking at the joint meeting of the city commission and planning board in response to the planning board's proposal to influence what gets built downtown.

"We are going to lose the historic character of the city," Gibbs said. "We will continue to get buildings on stilts or office buildings surrounded by parking lots ... it would bring more cars into the central business district and create a serious hazard to pedestrians and discourage shopping in the downtown area."

In 2001, the planning board began exploring ways to deal with potential parking shortages. A proposal to increase parking requirements for some restaurants failed, and the board next targeted office uses. The intent was to prohibit future offices from paying into the city's parking assessment district and force them to provide their own parking downtown.

Birmingham City Commissioner Rackeline Hoff struck a cautious tone as well.

"This discussion started in 2001, and I believe the situation is a lot different today than it was," she said. "At that time, Jacobson's was flourishing and we were all promoting retail and residential downtown ... look at what's happening now. Retail is not doing so well, and we have residential buildings sitting empty. In my opinion, we should take the current situation into consideration."

Gibbs said noted planner Andres Duany, the author of the 2016 plan, wanted people to park in the structures and walk through town. If the parking changes are made, future office users would park in a surface or underground lot, go to work, then go home without ever stepping foot downtown. And that prospect undermines the premise that increased foot traffic is the lifeblood of a vital downtown, Gibbs said.

The comments were made as the commission and planning board discussed strategy for the coming year. Planning board Chairman Gary Kulak said the board wasn't trying to discourage developers from building offices downtown and was in fact focused on leveling the playing field between parking requirements for residential and office uses.

However, a review of the minutes of past board meetings contradicts his statement. On July 17, 2002, according to the minutes, Kulak said: "The board does not want to encourage more office."

On August 14, 2002, board member Willem Tazelaar said: "Since office requires a greater amount of parking, the discouragement of office would be good."

Also on Aug. 14, Nicholas Lomacko, a city consultant hired to put the planning board's directives into action, said the new ordinance was intended to "discourage the promotion of office use by requiring them to provide on-site parking."

The city's legal department has been asked to write several opinions on the matter. More than once, Kulak has said the city's legal opinions didn't answer the questions he asked. The latest opinion will deal with whether the city can require future office users to provide entirely new parking with or without giving them credit for paying into the parking assessment district.

Current office buildings would be grandfathered in, but new ones would have to pay for their own parking -- a vexing possibility to developers.

"I just don't think Gary Kulak understands how parking works in this town," developer Edward Fuller said. "It's not like we pay the assessment in return for designated spaces in the structures. Business owners still have to buy parking permits ... the board doesn't understand the history of these decisions."

Fuller, a local developer who recently purchased the former Jacobson's store on Maple Road, said he bought the building with the expectation that the previous parking taxes paid by Jacobson's gave the building's owner the right to be included in the parking assessment district. That right should continue, Fuller said, and there is no practical way to provide additional on-site parking for Jacobson's store.

Brian Blaesing, a member of the board, has expressed concerns that the change would stop construction of office buildings and that the move could be seen as an attempt to ensure offices are not built on either of the former Jacobson's store sites.

Kulak said one option to address the parking shortage would be for future developments to help the city pay for new parking structures.

Jeff Salz, chairman of the city's parking advisory commitee, said the city would have a parking shortage of 1,900 spaces when the city is built to its full capacity.


2) Opinion: Office parking idea is overreaction that would send city straight into losing battle

Jan. 16, 2003

If the recent Planning Board proposal to require on-site parking for new offices downtown isn't dead yet, it should be.

The intent of the proposal may have been good, but the proposal wasn't.

Here's the issue:

The 2016 Plan suggests -- and many observers agree -- that there is an imbalance downtown between the amount of office space and the amount of retail and residential space. They'd like to correct the imbalance.

For the sake of argument, we're going to accept that notion, even though it may be flawed. Why? First of all, offices bring people into town -- people who shop in stores, eat in restaurants, drink in bars, and so on. Second, one might argue that we ought to fill the retail and residential vacancies that exist before we try to promote more.

But forget logic (that stuff on which most businesspeople base their real-life decisions) and, like our Planning Board, blue-sky it for a moment. In a perfect world (such as that envisioned by Planning Board members, most of whom have never made a real-life development decision), we would have a perfect balance of fully occupied retail, residential and office space. Since we don't have that balance, we have to DO SOMETHING.

What to do?

Well, you have a choice. You can:

1) Encourage residential and retail development.
2) Discourage office development.
3) Do both of the above.
4) Do neither of the above, and allow the market to work.

The Planning Board, led by Chairman Gary Kulak, rejected (4) above, most likely because it would have gone against their instinct to DO SOMETHING. Good decision; bad reason. Right reason: Letting the market decide is like giving your kid the keys to the candy store. Offices are Birmingham's candy. We have so many of them because they are so in demand.

Keeping the analogy alive, if you want your kid to eat good food, you do it by encouraging him to eat what's going to make him grow up healthy and strong. You don't punish him for eating candy. (That would be an overreaction that would alienate him, screw up your relationship and make it difficult or impossible to get anything accomplished.) You just limit the amount of candy he's allowed to have. And you make it a reward (dessert!) for eating well.

Translate that to the development question, and the answer is obvious. You correct the imbalance between office and retail/residential by encouraging the latter. Discouraging office isn't going to do any good, and may do harm. (The harm would be that it would simply turn away developers, which is why so many people are questioning the true motives behind this proposal.) If you were sincere about correcting the imbalance, and encouraging development of a particular sort, you would make office the dessert.

Which is why four- and five-story buildings are important to a town like Birmingham. If you want first-floor retail, and you want to encourage at least one or two stories of residential, you're going to have to give the developer at least one floor of office space. The "dessert" is the office is the developer's profit.

That's what Birmingham's so-called "overlay" zoning ordinance, an outgrowth of the 2016 Plan, attempted to do -- until the anti-everything powers-that-be got their mitts on it and the development process. First they squeezed building heights, and took the profit potential out of anything built under the ordinance. (Remember, the overlay ordinance is optional. Developers don't have to use it. They can still opt to use the far inferior "underlay" zoning rules, which do little to further the goals of the 2016 Plan.) Then they made the development process so cumbersome, and so antagonistic, that only the most masochistic of developers would even think of running the gauntlet.

But back to the issue at hand. The Planning Board went beyond simply attempting to encourage retail/residential, and chose (3) above, in effect deciding to discourage office development as well as encourage retail/residential.

To make matters worse, the proposed tool for discouraging office use was parking. Make the office developers provide parking, the logic goes, and they'll stop developing offices. Maybe, but in all likelihood they'll stop developing anything at all. (Remember the motive question? You have to ask if this isn't the goal after all!)

Problem is, making developers of new office space provide onsite parking is most likely illegal, would surely send the city straight to court, and end up costing taxpayers a bundle to fight yet another losing battle.

Why? Because many years ago, a bunch of very smart city fathers (unlike the crew we're stuck with now), devised a plan for funding a series of municipal parking decks. It compelled property owners to pay for the decks in return for the benefit (parking!) they'd receive, and the promise that they wouldn't have to provide parking of their own, unless they so desired. Whether you owned a building, or just an empty lot that might eventually contain a building, you had to pay. It was an ingenious plan. It helped define the character of downtown, it is why our downtown remained strong while many other downtowns failed, and it's the kind of thing you can't undo.

Downtown property owner Ted Fuller estimates he paid more than $1 million into the fund over 10 years. He -- and many other property owners -- will be damned if the city changes the rules now. They'd go to court immediately -- and win.

If the simple logic of the situation isn't enough, why not take the word of the attorneys, planners and other professionals we pay to advise us? A group of them got together a few months ago and decided the only way to accomplish the Planning Board goal would be to eliminate entirely offices as an allowable use downtown -- a move that would render all existing offices non-conforming, a patently ridiculous proposition. Not one, but two opinions from the city attorney bolstered this view.

All of this says nothing of the enormously negative impacts (those pesky unintended consequences that our policymakers don't want to hear about) that would result from forcing offices to provide parking. Imagine our core business district peppered with buildings on stilts, with parking lots -- and cars entering and exiting -- lining our streets. If the 2016 Plan was firm on anything, it was the genius and value of our parking system, and how it allows crucial uninterrupted retail development, and forces parking and cars to the perimeter.

One more note, which adds a bit of pathetic levity to an otherwise lamentable story: The Planning Board's proposed ordinance language, which was submitted to the city attorney for review, was poorly drafted, and didn't even accomplish the board's goal. If approved, it wouldn't have changed a thing!

But anyone paying close attention knew what the board was up to, and it was no good.

3) Opinion: Officials must act responsibly

Jan. 16, 2003

From the Birmingham Eccentric

Stop it. Just stop it.

Like children prodding at an ant hill, the Birmingham City Commission and planning board seem intent on stirring up trouble in areas that should be left alone.

The commission is toying with a liquor license being sought by an establishment that wants to operate at 201 E. Hamilton.

The planning board is considering a proposal to change requirements for parking at new offices in town.

In both cases, the city attorney raised a red flag that the city was on dubious legal ground.

But it often seems that the attorney's opinion carries no weight with the majority of commissioners and board members -- especially when it doesn't jibe with their intentions. Gary Kulak, chairman of the planning board, recently challenged the city's legal opinion on office parking.

Both of these cases could have serious consequences for the city. Denying a liquor license without solid reasons surely will invite a lawsuit. Tinkering with parking regulations could cause the company planning to buy the second Jacobson's store on North Old Woodward to back out of the deal. And it's uncertain what impact it would have on the Jacobson's store on Maple, which is likely going to be developed into office space by Edward Fuller.

Demolition has already begun there, and to throw roadblocks up at this stage of the process is another invitation for a lawsuit. Fuller and some city officials already are on poor terms, stemming from the last city election. Any move that would disrupt his business plans without clear legal backing could be interpreted as revenge by city officials.

The city has an attorney to provide guidance and keep the city out of trouble. To ignore his advice is reckless and dangerous.

Birmingham already is developing a reputation as a bad place to do business. To foster that view would be callous and irresponsible on the part of city officials. And to embroil the city in expensive lawsuits without just cause would be disgraceful.

City officials have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the city regardless of their personal views.


4) Letter to Eccentric: Revamp the PSD

Jan 16, 2003

When considering what and why Jacobson's did not make it, please consider a couple of factors. Compare their business plan with the successful stores.

It was obvious several years ago Jacobson's was in trouble. They could only report a profit in the fourth quarter! How can you stay in business when you lose money three quarters out of four? Obviously this was the fault of Jacobson's management, not the city of Birmingham government.

What is the Principal Shopping District (PSD) doing to bring a profitable business into Adams Square where Farmer Jack gave up quite some time ago? I think the PSD needs to be completely revamped and be judged on accomplishments, not how many people they can pack into a City Commission room where their future is questioned.

Ralph Seger
Birmingham


5) Letter to Eccentric: Sidewalk an insult

Jan. 16, 2003

It appears the Birmingham City Commission is in the process of rethinking some the decisions that were reached this past year. I am hopeful they will revisit the "sidewalk to nowhere." It appears the only people who support this folly is the commission. They seem unwilling to listen to the residents regarding this issue. I have used the Adams Road bridge for over 35 years and I cannot recall ever seeing anyone, on foot, actually crossing this bridge.

With revenue cuts looming I would hope that a little belt-tightening would be in order with priorities and absolute necessities addressed first. The estimated $574,500 expenditure is an insult to rational thinking individuals as well as to taxpayers. For a commission that is so concerned about the trees in our city perhaps consideration could be given to using the sidewalk dollars for planting more and larger replacement trees throughout the community for everyone to enjoy and not cutting down those in the path of the proposed sidewalk.

With the Dutch elm beetle and the ash borer destroying our residential neighborhoods we will need more and more replacement trees. Those pathetic little replacement trees that the city plants will take years and years to mature and return neighborhoods to their former glory.

Shirley White
Birmingham


6) Long-range planning agenda is posted; Includes PSD report and latest Duany sketch for Shain Park

Jan. 15, 2003

The City of Birmingham has posted the agenda for the City Commission's upcoming Jan. 25 long-range planning session. The agenda includes a report from the Principal Shopping District and the latest sketch by designer Andres Duany for a reworked Shain Park.

The PSD is expected to come under fire at the meeting from Commissioner Donald Carney and others for its actions and expenditures.

The preliminary design for Shain Park incorporates the site of the surface parking lot adjacent to the Community House.

Visit http://ci.birmingham.mi.us/AgendasMinutes/Commission/Agenda/2003/commagenda03.pdf to read or download the agenda.

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