Number 8: February 24, 2002

-------------------------------------------------------------
The Birmingham Buzz # 8
-------------------------------------------------------------

February 24, 2002

Welcome to the eighth edition of the Birmingham Buzz. If you missed our first seven editions, check out our archives at http://www.bhambuzz.org/archives.htm.

Our mission: To inform and involve all Birmingham citizens.

Visit us at http://www.bhambuzz.org.

In this edition:

1) Second Buzz forum to focus on downtown building
2) Building inspections find few violations
3) Grant application gooses Booth Park plans
4) Editorial: An evening of ironies
5) Ferrario says back-off: Thorsby, Carney and Lanzetta said to want building official removed
6) Open letter to Commission and Planning Board
7) Recreation Master Plan wins award
8) Letter to Eccentric: Can we trust a Commission that acts before promised review of 2016 Plan?
9) Acrobat files upgrade
10) To be removed


1) Second Buzz forum to focus on downtown building

The second Birmingham Buzz community forum will focus on downtown zoning, and provide explanations of changes in zoning regulations regarding building heights and other issues. Location has not been determined, but the forum will be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26. A panel of experts -- to include architects, developers, city officials and others -- will comment upon recent changes and answer questions. Mark your calendar, and watch the Buzz for the location.

The first Buzz forum in January drew more than 30 Birmingham residents for a presentation by Geoff Hockman on the Principal Shopping District.


2) Building inspections find few violations

February 24, 2002

From the Birmingham Eccentric

A two-week crackdown on construction sites in Birmingham resulted in "very few" violations, said Police Chief Richard Patterson.

"We were inundated with reports and the implication was that we were being too lenient," said Patterson. "That's why we decided to see how bad the problem was."

Patterson is to report his findings at Monday's 8 p.m. Birmingham City Commission meeting. He said he couldn't reveal the statistics because he said police were to continue conducting daily inspections of some 290 building sites throughout the weekend.

Birmingham City Commissioner Gordon Thorsby called for increased enforcement of construction sites at a Jan. 28 commission meeting. He produced a thick file of complaints complete with pictures.

Before the meeting, he dispatched an e-mail message to Birmingham City Manager Tom Markus detailing his stance on the issue.

"It is not the responsibility of citizens to cope with these frustrating issues," Thorsby said. "It is the responsibility of those that work in this city to respect those that live here. If they have difficulty with that, those builders and workmen are not welcome."

Patterson said he ordered the increased vigilance due to an influx of "behind the scenes" complaints that taxed building inspectors beyond their limits. According to documents obtained under The Freedom of Information Act, many of the complaints came from Thorsby and resident Tom Elliott. Both sent several e-mail messages to city staff pointing out possible code violations.

The additional inspections will cost taxpayers in excess of $6,000 in overtime paid to police officers and the commission will have to decide if it wants to continue the program. Firefighters and building code officials also participated in the inspections.

Police and fire officials routinely issue citations for violations that may be detrimental to public safety. Building code officials enforce other matters, such as illegal signs and property damage.

Thorsby recently toured construction sites with Patterson and a building official to get a firsthand look at the results of the stepped-up enforcement.

"I don't have the report but I can say that things do look substantially better," said Thorsby. "There is improvement in site maintenance and gates are getting locked up more often."

Thorsby said the tour produced two violations that city staff planned to follow through on.

Birmingham Mayor Dianne McKeon said she will wait for Patterson's report but early indications are that the increased vigilance wasn't prudent.

"I understand there are residents with concerns, but that isn't how I want my tax dollars spent," she said. "I've lived here 26 years, and I've never driven around looking for violations. But people have different interpretations of why we are elected."

Birmingham resident Anne Honhart said she has come across dangerous construction sites that aren't properly secured at night and believes the city could do a better job of enforcing building codes.

"People who have children might feel it's worth $6,000 to keep those sites safe," she said.

Marjorie Randall, also of Birmingham, didn't agree.

"I think the fact that we have police officers doing the job of building officials is a cause for concern," she said. "That's just wrong."

Though some city staff have criticized Thorsby for his exuberance, he is taking it in stride.

"Something had to be done because we need enforcement on a regular basis," he said.


3) Grant application gooses Booth Park plans

February 24, 2002

The April 1 due date for a state Department of Natural Resources grant application may speed the process of improvements to Booth Park. The application requires that conceptual designs be submitted to the City Commission, and that a public hearing be held prior to its submission.

Three conceptual plans were presented last Wednesday at the second Booth Park workshop, which was attended by about 20 Birmingham residents. The plans were drawn by consultants Wade-Trim.

Workshop participants favored a hybrid of two plans, showing support for such items as an entrance feature at Old Woodward and Harmon, a gazebo, playgrounds for younger and older children, improved grading, drainage and landscaping, an open play area surrounded by public art and sculpture, improvements to the banks of the Rouge River, and bridges and walkways making the park accessible from Old Woodward and from the surface parking area on Willets between Jacobson's and the First Baptist Church.

Features that were rejected included a parking lot, concession stand and skate park.


4) Editorial: An evening of ironies

February 21, 2002

For a meeting at which no official action was planned, the joint session of the Birmingham City Commission and Planning Board Tuesday night had plenty to write about. It was filled with irony.

Much of the irony occurred during a l-o-n-g discussion of parking downtown. Planning Board member Charles Tholen presented a detailed report (Birmingham has elevated the study of parking to nearly that of rocket science) that concluded, among other things, that if all vacancies downtown were filled, and a build-out similar to that envisioned by the 2016 Plan occurred, we could face a significant shortfall in parking spaces, requiring up to four additional parking structures.

We found the whole discussion ironic for several reasons.

First, it seemed to be a rehash of a rehash of what the 2016 Plan had already covered in sufficient and startlingly similar detail more than five years ago. We shouldn't be surprised, of course, because the notion that we ought to move forward, and that we've "been there, done that," clearly has little attraction for a group that would much rather "go back and do that over."

Second, it was rather amusing that such a discussion would occur between two public bodies that have spent the better part of the past year discouraging downtown development and doing little or nothing to help fill vacant retail space. With so many business people and developers saying the Commission and Planning Board are hostile to business people and developers, we thought it would have been more in character for them to be talking about tearing down a parking structure or two, rather than building more. (Then again, a supposed shortfall in parking could turn out to be a convenient pretext for further discouraging new development.)

If only we needed ONE additional parking structure! Unfortunately, at this point, developers are loath to do their thing in Birmingham, in large part because the Commission and Planning Board have removed many of the incentives for doing anything here. They've see-sawed allowable building heights, and gone beyond reasonably dictating basic uses like retail, office and residential to unreasonably redefining basic architectural terms like "mezzanine" with an eye toward regulating what you can and can't do with the interior of a structure.

Planning Board member Brian Blaesing brought the whole discussion momentarily back into reasonable focus when he reiterated the wise notion that the discussion of parking needs ought to follow development, not dictate it.

Another irony came when we started thinking about how great it would be to expand Shain Park, and to connect downtown to Booth Park. All we'd have to do is reduce or eliminate the surface lots across from the Community House and next to Jacobson's. So while the alleged anti-development folks were talking about building more parking decks, the alleged pro-development "shill" was sitting there hatching a plan for trashing a couple of parking lots. What's wrong with this picture?

As the discussion over parking requirements proceeded, Commissioner Dante Lanzetta provided more irony. He castigated himself, the Commission, the Planning Board and the 2016 planners for failing to spell out goals for the city's hopes and plans to encourage more residential use downtown. Do we want affordable housing, rental flats, million-dollar condos or what, Lanzetta asked. He took the opportunity to disdainfully assert, for the umpteenth time, his opinion that the million-dollar Willets condos, and other similar housing, are attracting well-heeled "snowbirds" who own two or three other homes and will spend just three or four months of the year in Birmingham. The implication was clear: Those aren't the kinds of people he'd like to see living downtown, in part because he doesn't think they'll be around long enough to spend much money in town.

Lanzetta, we are sorry to say, is a bit out of touch with the sorts of people who spend $1 million or more on a home, especially the ones who spend it on a second or third home. They tend to spend money on the street, too, and pay five-digit tax bills. Somebody needs to remind Lanzetta that the taxwoman doesn't care whether you're occupying your home or not. Even if Lanzetta's dubious assumptions about occupancy are correct, his "snowbirds" will probably spend more money in three or four months than, say, the typical city commissioner will spend in an entire year. We wonder if, during this joyous tax season, Lanzetta would be willing to provide a breakdown of his own downtown expenditures for 2001.

When you talk about the types of residences you want downtown, what you're really talking about is the types of people you want living there. After all, if you encourage million-dollar homes, you're going to get millionaires. If you encourage senior citizen housing, you're going to get seniors. If you encourage affordable housing, you're going to get middle-class residents.

Perhaps the 2016 Plan wisely avoided such discussion. On the other hand, perhaps Lanzetta is right, and we ought to begin to recognize, as he is wont to say, the elephant in our midst. What kind of people do we really want living downtown?

Certainly, as a respected member of the City Commission during the 2016 process and since, and as a leader of the City Commission, Lanzetta has had ample opportunity to influence such discussions and decisions. Clearly, he isn't fond of millionaires. Who would be acceptable to Lanzetta and the rest of the Commission? We are tempted to say that if their official actions lately in amending zoning regulations to discourage development are any indication, the answer is nobody. But that would be either cynical or naïve or both. The truth appears to be simpler -- yet, alas, discouraging. Our city fathers have shown us that they are very good at indicating what they don't like, but still have a long way to go when it comes to the more creative and intellectually challenging job of articulating a positive vision.


5) Ferrario says back-off: Thorsby, Carney and Lanzetta said to want building official removed

February 21, 2002

From the Birmingham Eccentric

An attorney representing Birmingham building official Mary Ferrario is accusing three city commissioners of meddling in personnel matters and has threatened to file a sex discrimination lawsuit if the alleged behavior continues.

Bloomfield Hills attorney Lynn Shecter made the accusation in a Jan. 15 letter to Birmingham City Manager Tom Markus.

"We understand that Commissioners Dante Lanzetta, Gordon Thorsby and Don Carney have demanded that Ms. Ferrario be fired, bought out or dismissed on some pretext," said Shecter.

"In addition, the fact that the representatives of the city commission chose to threaten only female employees of the city is a strong indication of sex discrimination."

Patricia McCullough, Birmingham community development director, has also hired an attorney. The lawyer, Robert Webster, said he is in the process of collecting information about a Dec. 17 meeting between Markus, McCullough, Carney, Lanzetta and Thorsby and could not comment further.

Markus said building code enforcement and personnel matters were topics of discussion at the Dec. 17 meeting but he wouldn't go into detail. Markus later released a statement spelling out his stance on the issue.

"Under the council-manager form of government personnel decisions rest with the city manager," said Markus. "Rest assured that as long as I am the city manager the responsibilities associated with personnel matters will be my decision and mine alone.

"It has long been my practice not to discuss the personnel actions that I am involved with," Markus said. "Consistent with this practice and on advice of legal counsel, I am respectfully declining to answer your specific questions."

Under the Birmingham City Charter, only the commission has the power to fire the city manager, the city clerk and the city health officer, which in Birmingham's case is provided by Oakland County.

In a Feb. 14 report in The Eccentric, Thorsby was critical of city code enforcement at residential building sites, but said he didn't blame specific city employees for problems.

A screening wall on the roof of The Willits condominium project has also been the subject of much controversy, with elected and appointed officials calling for an inquiry into whether the wall was properly approved by city staff.

City Attorney Tim Currier is investigating the Willits matter and is expected to give a full report to the Birmingham Planning Board at its 7:30 p.m. Feb. 27 meeting.

Lanzetta and Carney did not respond to inquires about the personnel matters. Thorsby had no comment.

In 1994, Ferrario filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the city that was settled out of court. Ferrario, then a part-time building inspector, alleged she was denied full-time employment because she was a women. The city eventually paid Ferrario undisclosed damages and hired her for the full-time job, said Markus.

A few years after that and based only on merit, said Markus, Ferrario became the city building official. Ferrario is now responsible for interpreting and enforcing building codes.

At a Feb. 13 planning board meeting, the board approved a resolution to ask the city commission for $10,000 to hire its own attorney to advise the board rather than depend solely on the advice of city staff.

McCullough and Ferrario could not be reached for comment.


6) Open letter to Commission and Planning Board

Dear Commissioners and Planning Board members,

You are cordially invited to contribute to the Birmingham Buzz.

We will happily publish your articles and/or editorials. We also invite you to participate in our less formal, but lively, discussion group.

Many readers of the Buzz would like to hear your positions on the issues discussed in our pages, or on any issues you deem important. We believe that as as public servants you have a duty to talk to us -- to explain the positions you take and the votes you cast, to articulate your vision for our city, and set our agenda.

When you talk to the Buzz, you will be talking to more than 300 subscribers. Our website gets roughly 40 hits per day. And more than 60 Birmingham residents have signed on as "Supporters."

Most of us cannot attend public meetings, and neither the minutes of those meetings nor occasional newspaper coverage provide sufficient depth. You owe it not only to readers of the Buzz, but to yourselves, lest you or your actions be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Please accept this invitation in the humble and positive spirit in which it is offered. We look forward to hearing from you. Write us at info@bhambuzz.org
{{PERIOD}}
Respectfully,

Clinton Baller, Editor


7) Recreation Master Plan wins award

The Birmingham Recreation Master Plan has won the 2002 Master Plan Award from the Michigan Recreation and Park Association. Kudos to the Parks Board and consultant Wade-Trim, who developed the plan.

Check out the award at http://www.bhambuzz.org/pdfs/parks_plan_award.pdf.

Check out the plan at http://www.bhambuzz.org/pdfs/recreation_master_plan.pdf


8) Letter to Eccentric: Can we trust a Commission that acts before promised review of 2016 Plan?

February 17, 2002

At its January 28 meeting, the Birmingham City Commission reduced the maximum allowable heights in the D2 and D3 downtown commercial/residential overlay districts. Last month, the D4 zone also fell victim to the same political engineering that has tainted virtually all City Commission decisions.

These changes will dramatically (and negatively) alter what can be built (if anything) in this city. January 28's vote happened in spite of what these same commissioners agreed to and voted upon at a public hearing last August 27 at the Community House.

For those who did not attend the packed meeting on that August evening, it was attended by more than 350 people, most of whom were hostile to the Commission's intent. The Commission had been predisposed to reduce building heights (the D4 zone height was the issue of the night, with the D2 and D3 zones on deck) without concern for the effect this action would have on the 2016 Plan-mandated mixed-uses this town so desperately needs to sustain itself. The proposal for reduced building heights was offered for a vote without reason, research, or explanation, and was in conflict with the recommendation of city staff.

Fortunately, the scrutiny of the crowd delayed (temporarily) this punitive decision. At the August meeting, Commissioner Seth Chafetz, along with Commissioners Dixon, McKeon, Wooley and DeLaura, voted against reducing heights established by the 2016 Plan, stating they were uncomfortable voting for these height reductions until a formal citywide, long-promised, 2016 review was held.

The Commissioners, who so love to support the 2016 Plan when it is convenient to do so (as with the Commission's recent refusal to accept MDOT road funds because the MDOT plan did not include a traffic circle as suggested in an early version of the 2016 Plan) and who so quickly disregard it and remind us that it has never been officially adopted when it's not convenient, defiantly displayed their ignorance and complete lack of understanding and respect for the very complex and nuanced 2016 Plan.

Jan. 28's vote passed without any credible evidence to support the reason for the reduction, any explanation of how the new height limitations were determined, or any understanding of the consequences. The Commission also failed to consult with the professionals, staff, or citizens who participated in the charrettes that gave rise to the 2016 Plan.

The long-promised 2016 Plan review, for some reason, could never be conveniently scheduled. At the August meeting, the review was finally scheduled for the weekend before the November election. Not only was this review cancelled, but the City Commission also refused to hold the public hearing that is has traditionally been scheduled before an ordinance amendment becomes law. Did anybody really think the promised 2016 Plan review would happen with the new Commission?

These actions are designed to eliminate public pressure on the Commission and confine public debate and dissent to the Planning Board level. Unfortunately, as the Planning Board is currently populated by Commission-appointed no-growth folks who have little expertise in these issues (see coverage of Tom McGraw's resignation in the January 13, 2002, Eccentric), public debate and dissent are also less than welcome at this level.

I think that public and elected officials are duty-bound (if not ethically bound) to be credible. How can any citizen trust our Commissioners when they publicly state one thing for the record at a public hearing (under public scrutiny), vote (accordingly) at that hearing, and then vote not to hold the much-promised public review, and then weeks later vote not have the public hearing (ever), only to vote (after conspiring to eliminate all public opposition) in support of reduced building heights in contradiction to their earlier public promises and public opinion.

Is anyone else more than a little concerned about this Commission's integrity or credibility? No matter what you feel about building heights in the D4 and D2 and D3 zones, you should be concerned about the assaults on the democratic process that have been undertaken by this Commission.

Christopher J. Longe, AIA
Birmingham

9) Acrobat files upgraded

We've upgrade the Adobe Acrobat .pdf files throughout our site to make web viewing quicker! If you've been frustrated in the past trying to download and view the 2016 Plan or the Recreation Master Plan, give it another try.

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