Thursday, June 13, 2002
Number 23: June 13, 2002
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
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
Thursday, June 06, 2002
Number 22: June 6, 2002
1) BULLETIN: Tree ordinance hearing Monday
2) Next Buzz Forum to feature prominent scholar
3) Editorial: Who is Paul Reagan?
4) Editorial: Arrogant officials hurt community
5) Commission puts merchants, neighborhoods and infrastructure atop its list of priorities
6) Ain’t Email Great Dept: About those ‘tubes’in front of City Hall
7) City to ask Duany for Shain Park design
8) Editorial: Parking lot plan worth revisiting
9) Editorial: Community House says bury Lot 7
10) The Peanut Gallery: Citizens weigh in on Shain Park expansion
11) Birmingham ordinance draws criticism; Chafetz: Intent is to regulate builders
12) Communities weigh proposed tree laws
13) Township hugs trees too tight, some say; pressured, W. Bloomfield will revise plan
14) Architect Ziegelman earns AIA’s highest honor
Number 22: June 6, 2002
In this edition:
1) BULLETIN: Tree ordinance hearing Monday
2) Next Buzz Forum to feature prominent scholar
3) Editorial: Who is Paul Reagan?
4) Editorial: Arrogant officials hurt community
5) Commission puts merchants, neighborhoods and infrastructure atop its list of priorities
6) Ain’t Email Great Dept: About those ‘tubes’in front of City Hall
7) City to ask Duany for Shain Park design
8) Editorial: Parking lot plan worth revisiting
9) Editorial: Community House says bury Lot 7
10) The Peanut Gallery: Citizens weigh in on Shain Park expansion
11) Birmingham ordinance draws criticism; Chafetz: Intent is to regulate builders
12) Communities weigh proposed tree laws
13) Township hugs trees too tight, some say; pressured, W. Bloomfield will revise plan
14) Architect Ziegelman earns AIA’s highest honor
15) To be removed, send a request to info@bhambuzz.org
THE BIRMINGHAM BUZZ
-- "It's the 2016 Plan, stupid."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz # 22 -- June 6, 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, the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance 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) BULLETIN: Tree ordinance hearing Monday
2) Next Buzz Forum to feature prominent scholar
3) Editorial: Who is Paul Reagan?
4) Editorial: Arrogant officials hurt community
5) Commission puts merchants, neighborhoods and infrastructure atop its list of priorities
6) Ain't Email Great Dept: About those 'tubes'in front of City Hall
7) City to ask Duany for Shain Park design
8) Editorial: Parking lot plan worth revisiting
9) Editorial: Community House says bury Lot 7
10) The Peanut Gallery: Citizens weigh in on Shain Park expansion
11) Birmingham ordinance draws criticism; Chafetz: Intent is to regulate builders
12) Communities weigh proposed tree laws
13) Township hugs trees too tight, some say; pressured, W. Bloomfield will revise plan
14) Architect Ziegelman earns AIA's highest honor
15) To be removed, send a request to info@bhambuzz.org
{{PERIOD}}
1) BULLETIN: Tree ordinance hearing Monday
The Birmingham City Commission has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance for Monday night, June 10, at 8 p.m. in the commission chambers at City Hall, 151 Martin St.
We urge you to review the ordinance at http://www.bhambuzz.org/pdfs/Trees.pdf, and then voice your opinions at the public hearing Monday night.
See you there!
2) Next Buzz Forum to feature prominent scholar
Mark your calendars now for the next Buzz Community Forum, set for 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.
The forum will begin at 4 p.m. and run until about 7.
Under Reed's leadership, the Mackinac Center has emerged as the largest and one of the most effective and prolific of over 40 "free market" think tanks in America. Reed he has written more than 800 newspaper columns and articles, 200 radio commentaries, dozens of articles in magazines and journals in the U. S. and abroad, as well as five books. Visit the Mackinac Center's website at http://www.mackinac.org, and http://www.mackinac.org/bio.asp?ID=3 to read more about Reed and some of his writings.
Watch the Buzz for more details, including an agenda.
3) Editorial: Who is Paul Reagan?
Our mysterious, anonymous editorialist strikes again:
From our Discussion Group
Posted by I.O., June 05 2002,21:31
Who is Paul Reagan? Birmingham buzzes with urban legends about the shadowy head of the powerful and secretive Presidents Council. Is he a lawyer? A law professor? A graphics artist? The illegitimate, wrong-side-of-the-blanket son of Dante Lanzetta, born of a secret wartime liaison with a mysterious Balkan Countess? None of the above!!
Actually, Paul Reagan is an academic: a full time Wayne State faculty “Senior Lecturer,” which is better than a grad student and not as good as a Professor. He has a PhD from MSU, MS from Georgia Institute of Technology, BA from New Mexico State. His specialty is Management and Organizational Behavior. For full info, check out http://www.busadm.wayne.edu/faculty/Profiles/mgt_faculty/reagan.htm.
So are we all just lab rats for Paulie’s next published article? Birmingham politics a research project? NEITHER! Paulie R. is a quiet, spare, dead serious little man. His angry public utterances spark with tight-lipped, white-knuckled fury. His politics are Democratic, zealously Greenie, but he’ll make pragmatic alliances with wet Republicans such as state rep candidate S. Taub. Unlike his buffoonish sometime partner P. Gough, the wacky Perfesser Paulie is interested in power.
Perfesser Paulie bought his Purdy St. home in 1996, around the time the 2016 Plan was being drafted. He wasted no time jumping into B’ham politics, enlisting with the 1999 Armageddon (as opposed to the 2001 Mop-Up) election. He volunteered with D. Lanzetta’s campaign, helping Last Place Lanzy hang on by his fingernails. After tasting blood, P.P. decided to stick around City Hall, selling himself as a kingmaker and all-around consultant. “I’m Paul Reagan,” goes his spiel. “I’m the guy who gets people elected in this city.” He’s now branched out, assisting with the Taub campaign.
The rise of Prez Counzil gave Perfesser Paulie his biggest break. Moving behind and manipulating established figures such as D. Conrad, P.P. made himself indispensable to the Prezzies. He advanced a network of cronies, ranging from respectable Dr. J. Holland, to loose cannons like would-be Artsfuhrer G. Kulak. Prez Council has become an old-fashioned political machine, and P.P. is beyond control of his patrons now.
Bottom Line: Perfesser Paulie wants to be THE player, behind the scenes boss of Birmingham, essential go-to guy for everything, ruling an anti-development, cutting-edge, anti-sprawl, business-hostile “green” community. Today his ambition seems achieved. But Birmingham is a cruel old town, with a broken heart for every lampost in the CBD. B'ham is easily conquered but nearly impossible to hold. Our wacky little Perfesser has assembled a truly amazing enemies list for such a recent arrival, all waiting a misstep.
The chance has come. Perfesser Paulie is a competent political technician, but like many academic types, cool and disconnected from the general public -- as well as being a fanatical zealot under his smooth professional H.R. demeanor. The Tree Ordinance is a monstrous miscalculation. So is the (gag) “Ethics Ordinance.” Others will follow.
If the Central Birmingham Residents Association (whose election stats show PeePee can’t deliver his own neighborhood) gets its schiess together and throws his skinny butt out as Prez, he won’t even be legitimately part of PrezCouncil. Plus the ‘03 elections are coming: sure to be a referendum on the hijacking of the “pro-neighborhood” movement into a functioning Green Party! Can "The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker" survive outside of Daddy Lanz’s shadow?
4) Editorial: Arrogant officials hurt community
June 6, 2002
From the Birmingham Eccentric
By Judith Doner Berne
I love Birmingham.
Although it's not my hometown, it was - and still is - my worktown. And, as a former editor of its Birmingham-Bloomfield Eccentric newspaper, a current columnist on that paper's op-ed page, and a board member of the Cultural Council of Birmingham Bloomfield, I care about its image and vitality.
That image and vitality are being sapped by the arrogance of some members of the Birmingham City Commission and Planning Board.
Birmingham has always had a reputation as a difficult city in which to build. That's appropriate when addressing carefully drawn prerequisites meant to create and preserve fine buildings, homes and landscapes.
But why does that require an accompanying meanness of spirit?
Over the years, I have seen a pattern emerge in the treatment of developers and others who seek to run events in Birmingham as children who don't quite understand the obligations of choosing to enter the kingdom.
I watched quality developers such as Jim Weiner who built the Palladium, and read about quality architectural firms, such as Shervish Vogel, hired to create a more cohesive city center, treated with disrespect.
In December, commissioners were antagonistic to a Michigan Department of Transportation official, whose mission was to offer them up to $280,000 to make the dangerous Woodward/S. Old Woodward intersection less dangerous. In 1999, 18 accidents occurred there.
The commission had several legitimate problems with the state-drawn plan, but that's hardly a reason to shoot the messenger, so to speak. "I didn't feel they (commissioners) liked me much," traffic engineer Bob Lariviere told Birmingham Eccentric reporter Larry Ruehlen. The issue, which could result in forfeiting the MDOT grant and maintaining the dangerous intersection, is expected to resurface at Monday's 8 p.m. commission meeting.
Recently, unfounded public accusations against Robertson Brothers, developers of the Willits condominium project, further expand this pattern to the point of questioning integrity.
Members of the Planning Board made it appear that the developer - perhaps in cahoots with city planning and building officials - made changes in the final design that substantially altered original construction blueprints.
But, as the planning board should have known, some changes are common to buildings of this magnitude. As it turned out, fewer changes were made than might be expected, according to the independent expert hired by the city.
"I said from the beginning that this was a witch hunt," said Paul Robertson. "And I don't like what they tried to do - especially the innuendo. Everything we did was above board."
"You would think the (planning) board would understand the process, but from the questions they keep asking, you would think perhaps they don't," added Victor Saroki, the project architect.
Recently it was the unsuspecting Detroit Auto Dealers Association that experienced the weight of some commissioners' arrogance, when the group attempted to commandeer N. Old Woodward for an old-fashioned, non-profit Soap Box Derby.
The derby, billed as a decades-old race for children who build their own race cars, requires a hill such as the one on N. Old Woodward, since what fuels the cars is gravity. It would have meant closing the street to other traffic on the weekend before the Woodward Dream Cruise.
I have no problem with the close 4-3 vote that denied holding the race. Merchants were worried about a loss of business - particularly two Saturdays in a row - and this is hardly the climate to toy with their financial equilibrium.
I do have a problem with the adversarial dialogue, making race officials jump through a series of verbal hoops. Why not a direct, friendly explanation that perhaps this wasn¹t the best timing for such an event?
Instead, a ludicrous suggestion was made that race officials should compensate merchants for any prospective loss. And, although the group had already sent out information to local shopkeepers and homeowners and held a meeting with the merchants involved, they were told to re-poll them, and come up with a business plan for the race.
Soap Box Derby officials, working with the auto dealers for the first time, acknowledged they hadn¹t come up against such antagonism in other suburbs, such as Troy, Southfield and Rochester.
How is Birmingham served by such arrogance? This is no kingdom in any sense of the word. It is a city hard hit by store vacancies and divided on its future.
Thomas Jefferson said: An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise "of power over his fellow citizens."
Civility in administering power by city officials - elected and appointed - is an obligation of public service. The Birmingham community, as all communities, should insist on nothing less.
Judith Doner Berne, a West Bloomfield resident, is a former managing editor of The Eccentric Newspapers.
5) Commission puts merchants, neighborhoods and infrastructure atop its list of priorities
June 6, 2002
From the Birmingham Eccentric
By Larry Ruehlen
Neighborhoods, infrastructure and merchants have been identified as the city's top priorities by the Birmingham City Commission.
"When I first came here the attitude was if it ain't broke don't fix it," said City Commissioner Dante Lanzetta Jr. "The window wells in this building were crumbling... it isn't that way any more."
Lanzetta was speaking at the all-day annual planning session the commission held Saturday.
Preventing the city from crumbling wasn't the only goal the commission set. Others involved keeping the youth of the city involved and content, exploring offering liquor-by-the-glass licenses and fostering effecting communications between members of boards and committees.
A complete list of the commission's goals is as follows:
Top priorities
* Support merchant viability.
* Address evolving neighborhood needs.
* Renovate and maintain infrastructure.
High priorities
* Develop park bond strategy.
* Preserve and enhance the environment.
* Complete civic center plan.
Other priorities
* Continue and enhance public information systems.
* Encourage effective communication among boards.
* Achieve and maintain fiscal equity.
* Review alcohol sales/licensing policy.
* Youth Strategy.
Within each category the goals are listed randomly so the ones at the top are no more important than the others. The commission uses the goals to set a direction for the future. The list was last updated five years ago.
Commissioner Gordon Thorsby has been talking for weeks about the need for more planning in the neighborhoods. He has suggested developing neighborhood master plans that address such things as street widths, building design and aesthetics, and development regulations.
On the question of merchants, several members of the commission said they were concerned that the city's Principal Shopping District doesn't always represent the best interests of merchants because landlords often have more power. They suggested trying to change the state law to give merchants more of a say in local issues. Commissioner Rackeline Hoff also mentioned the possibility of using tax incentives to try and draw more businesses to town.
Lanzetta was not alone in his concern for infrastructure improvements. The commission said the city must continually upgrade items such as sewers, water mains and local roads.
The commission recommitted the city to implementing the civic center plan and also established city parks and other public lands as high priorities. The commissioners said the city should be prepared to spend revenue collected from the park bonds wisely and not only maintain the environment, but also improve it.
Under the other priorities category, the item on fiscal equity came out of a discussion centering on providing equal city services to the downtown and the outlying neighborhoods. Commissioner Don Carney was adamant about the need for the city to hire a public information officer.
Markus didn't like the idea.
"I'm the public information officer," said Markus. "Are we really talking about how to get better press? Because we already have a communications policy in place and it is very economical."
"We're not going to get into that," said Thorsby.
"I'm talking about getting the information out to the residents" said Chafetz. "I'm not talking about what the papers print."
The city already publishes a newsletter, but Carney wants to explore the possibility of starting a city magazine that might give local politicians a forum to discuss issues facing the city.
6) Ain't Email Great Dept: About those 'tubes'in front of City Hall
Subject : New planter/sculpture outside City Hall
Date : Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:12:00
From : Clinton Baller
To : Tom Markus
Tom,
Who can give me the birds' eye lowdown on the new planter/sculpture outside City Hall? [http://www.bhambuzz.org/images/Tubes.jpg]
My questions:
* Who designed it?
* Who approved it?
* Who constructed it?
* What is it made of?
* Is it permanent?
* Was anything else considered for that location?
* Do those responsible feel it is worthy of that esteemed location?
Clint
Subject : Re: New planter/sculpture outside City Hall
Date : Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:46:00
From : "Tom Markus"
To : Clinton Baller
With the loss of the large maple tree last year the DPS crews developed the planting and sculpture from inexpensive materials. It was reported to the commission that this is just a temporary planting until the civic center [Shain Park] concept plan is developed and implemented. Rather than leave a rather barren flat woodchipped area in front of the hall the crews reshaped the area and planted the "sculpture" and flowers. These are the same crews who plant the flowers and gardens throughout the downtown. It is painted PVC pipe.
7) City to ask Duany for Shain Park design
June 2, 2002
From the Birmingham Eccentric
By Larry Ruehlen
After spending $260,000 on a failed plan to expand Shain Park, the Birmingham City Commission decided Wednesday to start anew.
The commission voted 5-1 to ask world-renowned urban planner Andres Duany to design an expansion based on his recommendations in the Downtown Birmingham 2016 Plan. The commission discussed several options including three designs by local planner Bob Gibbs, but it was Duany's concept that won out.
"I would rather come out of the battles with scars, with disfigurements and with the crippled limbs that come with dealing with Andres Duany than what I went through being sliced to death with fine razors by Schervish Vogel," said Birmingham City Commissioner Dante Lanzetta Jr.
In 1997, the design partnership of Schervish Vogel/Luckenbach Ziegelman was brought in to expand on Duany's concept for the park and the result was large-scale plan that would have cost an estimated $18 million to implement. A controversy erupted over expanding the park by installing an acoustic band shell on what is now parking lot No. 7.
Users of the parking lot -- many of whom frequent the Community House -- demanded replacement spaces, and a $9 million parking structure was included in the design. The plan was eventually scrapped in 2000 as being too ambitious and too costly.
Lanzetta raised the idea of going back to Duany's basic plan and City Commissioner Russell Dixon said the best way to carry out the plan is to bring Duany back.
Birmingham City Manager Tom Markus agreed.
"We would be saying, OK, you are the one who came up with this drawing, now show us how it works," said Markus.
Several members of the commission said they were concerned with the parking issue and others said adding more greenspace to downtown should be the primary focus. Markus said both goals could be achieved by installing underground parking. But the majority of the commission wasn't yet willing to spend the $30,000 to $38,000 per parking space it would cost. Duany's 2016 Plan Shain Park concept added parking on Merrill Street and around the perimeter of the park. Lot No. 7 has 142 spaces, and the city isn't sure how many spaces could be accommodated in Duany's plan.
Birmingham already has detailed surveys of the area and plans to ask Duany to use them to come up with a preliminary design, an approach that would save money.
City Commissioner Donald Carney voted against inviting Duany back, and said he didn't like the fact that the city is involved in a legal dispute that centers on a Duany design to add a shopping district to Bloomfield Township/ Pontiac that could directly compete with downtown Birmingham.
"I have great reservations about rekindling the relationship with Duany," said Carney. "Why do we have to go to him? This is not the work of a guru. There must be some local person who can do this."
A possible legal hassle could occur if the city decides to plant grass on Lot No. 7. In a May 1, 2001, city memo, Sherry Lee, city assessor, said private property owners paid 40 percent of the $369,000 cost of the lot so the spaces would have to be replaced or the city would have to compensate the taxpayers for the loss of parking.
Birmingham resident William Wiebrecht said he didn't understand why everyone was so worried about preserving surface parking in the heart of downtown.
"Lot No. 7 is less than 100 percent full and all we are talking about is getting all those spaces back," he said. "I thought we were trying to encourage people to park in the decks anyway."
8) Editorial: Parking lot plan worth revisiting
June 6, 2002
From the Birmingham Eccentric
Resurrecting the idea of converting city parking lot No. 7 into a park is sure to be a hot topic, but the city is correct in revisiting that proposal.
(See a photo of Lot 7 at http://www.bhambuzz.org/images/Lot7.JPG)
As part of the Birmingham 2016 plan produced a few years ago, it was proposed that the lot, just across from The Community House, and south of Shain Park, be converted into a park.
At the time, urban planner Andres Duany was pretty blunt in his assessment of the site, saying the city was wasting a key piece of property as a parking lot. Duany had been called in to work on a long-range development plan for the city, which included a plan for redeveloping the parking lot.
Duany was right. This central piece of property should be showcased by the city as an extension of Shain Park. But while the logic is clear, there are circumstances that make its implementation much murkier.
To begin with, there is solid opposition from The Community House, which has a stake in keeping the space as a parking lot. Patrons of The Community House regularly use the parking lot, and its close proximity is especially important to senior citizens who would find it difficult to walk to The Community House from the nearby parking structures. The Community House's concerns are legitimate and serious.
In addition, businesses around the lot were tagged with a special assessment for the lot because they benefit from it. We deeply appreciate The Community House and the services it provides to people from all over, not just Birmingham. And all those who have paid a special assessment have a legitimate claim for some form of reimbursement if the lot is taken away.
But the city has to balance those factors with the overall needs of the community. And converting that space into a park clearly would be an improvement.
Some consideration has been given to putting an underground parking lot on the site, which would deal with everyone's concerns. But such lots are extremely expensive, costing millions of dollars, and it's difficult to justify such a cost when the above-ground parking structures often stand unfilled.
The proposal to redo the lot does allow for some parking along the perimeter, which may or may not satisfy the needs of The Community House patrons. But it is at least something to offer them. As for the assessment issue, there is always a way to solve such problems, although there is a cost associated.
Overall, the city should give this plan serious consideration. Shain Park is a central gathering point for the city. Adding to it would only strengthen the community.
9) Editorial: Community House says bury Lot 7
June 2, 2002
From the Birmingham Eccentric
By Shelley Roberts
Every Sunday and Thursday, I race to the end of my driveway in my bathrobe and slippers to retrieve the Eccentric. I madly scan the first section to see if anything of importance is afoot that may affect the Community House.
Last Sunday, my heart sped up as my adrenaline pumped in, when I read a title of a front page article, "Shain Park expansion plan resurfaces."
"Oh, no!" I screamed, "not this battle again."
As many of my politician friends know, I do not take positions in support of political candidates or issues. It's not that I see myself as an important influence. Quite the contrary. I see my identity as one that is inextricably tied to my job as president and chief executive officer of the Community House. When I support someone or something, it may appear that the Community House supports that person or issue, when this is not the case.
However, let an issue threaten the Community House, and I'm in the fray. I pick and choose my fights carefully, but the need for parking in close proximity to the House is an important cause.
At one time, free parking was available on Lot 7, directly across the street from the Bates Street entrance to the Community House, for Community House and library patrons as well as customers of Birmingham stores and hair salons. When parking meters were installed, my predecessor, Gale Colwell, waged a good fight against them, but lost the battle. Gale's concern was right on. Even today, the biggest complaint by far that is noted on our surveys is with respect to parking.
Parents of young children do not want to park in the Chester Street structure and endure rain, snow and traffic. Elderly members of the Senior Men and Senior Women's clubs are unable to do the walk. Class takers who might pay $7 for a class here or at a school where free parking is available, don't like paying $3 to park.
Meeting participants don't like running out of their meetings at 9 a.m. to feed the meters or racing out to add more coins if their meetings run late. Wedding guests and hosts are unhappy when they get tickets, while parking at hotels and banquet halls is free.
In the Downtown Birmingham 2016 master plan for the city, it was recommended that Shain Park be extended into parking lot No. 7 by removing the existing parking and providing fewer, angled parking spaces around the expanded park.
I objected to this plan for many reasons including feasibility because the issue of tree roots was not considered, and the plan did not seem like a safe one.
Recently, a memorandum was distributed at an Advisory Parking Committee meeting that helps the House's cause. The memo dated May 1, 2001, from city Assessor Sherry Lee to City Manager Tom Markus says in part:
"You have asked for information relative to the necessity for mitigation of deleted parking spaces in the event that Municipal Parking Lot No. 7 is converted into a park, as proposed. If the surface parking is removed and replaced by a park, it is my professional opinion that off-street parking 'equivalent' in terms of property or compensation to that which is removed would have to be restored by the city and returned concurrently with the park expansion."
Ms. Lee noted that pursuant to special assessments in 1965 and 1970, 40 percent of the costs of Lot 7 were borne by private owners existing at the time within 600 feet of Lot 7.
Ms. Lee stated that the law requires that the property specially assessed for Lot 7 must receive a clear and direct benefit from an improvement differing from the benefit to the general public. Ms Lee further stated that although the park is a public improvement, it benefits only users and not the abutting property owners, the owners who paid the special assessments.
Ms. Lee concluded that unless the city foregoes the expansion of Shain Park or justly compensates owners in the special assessment district, the city must offer an equally desirable substitute parking facility.
I liked the conclusion of the Eccentric article. City Manager Tom Markus proposed a solution that some of us have suggested in the past, "put the parking lot under ground." I would include tunnels in this plan, like you see in Toronto, that connect the lot to City Hall, the library, the Townsend Hotel and the Community House.
Let's get this issue off dead center and make everyone happy!
(Shelley Roberts is president and chief executive officer of the Community
House.)
10) The Peanut Gallery: Citizens weigh in on Shain Park expansion
Edited excerpts from our lively discussion group:
Posted by NAL:
June 03 2002,08:35
Finding an opportunity to give the [Birmingham City] Commission credit for supporting the 2016 Plan is like finding an Avs fan at Joe Louis Arena. But the support for Duany to do the Shain Park plan is like a diamond in the rough. Credit where it is due. For this rare case, the Commission is acting properly. It is about time.
The Duany plan should be implemented. It needs some development work, as we all know. The Shain plan in the 2016 Plan book was a concept sketch. However, this sketch is very doable and very appropriate. It would be inexpensive and quick to implement. It should be done immediately.
The Community House is unreasonable to push for keeping this eyesore called Lot #7. They should be embarrassed to have a surface lot at their front door. We, as citizens, should be equally bothered to have our prime Civic Center space used as storage for cars. It is a disgrace to our town.
This surface parking lot eyesore MUST go ASAP!! At any cost, it is worth it. Give this prime city-owned property back to the residents of the city.
The Community House will be fine without it. They are being short-sighted and self-serving. If they were true quality neighbors, they would push to make our city more beautiful, not keep it looking like a strip mall in Troy.
Duany and virtually any urban expert will agree that this surface parking lot is an eyesore and improper to a walkable city like Birmingham. TAKE IT OUT!
Posted by Roger Gienapp:
May 27 2002,22:29
Well, I see the Great Debate over Lot #7 has begun again.
City Manager Tom Markus tipped his hand rather early in this latest round of meaningless babble by offering his opinion that we need more underground parking for his favorite charity, the Community House.
No doubt, the past several months have been spent rounding up support for this expensive, taxpayer funded scheme to serve the Community House needs from the likes of Parking Advisory Committee members (several of whom have connections to the Community House), The Library Board (several of whom have connections to the Community House), the crusading Birmingham Eccentric editors and writers (several of whom have connections to the Community House), and the Planning Board (several of whom have connectons to Mars, as near as I can tell).
Of course, our dutiful staff will "study" the issue and come to the astounding conclusion that underground parking at a midpoint between two existing parking decks is neccessary for the economic survival of the CBD.
No doubt, the Community House will trot out its most esteemed senior citizens to plead the case for parking so they can attend their monthly luncheons, and follow them with numerous other "impartial" patrons of the Community House classes who claim they can't walk ALL THE WAAAAAAY from the Chester Street garage for their aerobics classes.
We'll probably hear from the many Library patrons who will be denied access to read and study at our own Baldwin Library if they would have to actually (gasp!) walk more than a block to get into the place.
Ah, yes, let's not have a public space worthy of our town and usable by ALL of us. Let's instead demand that the taxpayers fund the construction of an underground parking deck for the Community House. (Oh, and the library and City Hall, too.) Let's keep our tacky, run down, lame excuse for a civic square as it is and, beter yet , let's plant an underground parking bunker next to it! We'll put some flowering trees in concrete tubs on top. That will make that shabby old Shain Park look good by comparison.
Hey, better yet, let's hire some egomaniacal architect to design something so outrageous and so expensive that people will be glad to leave things just the way they are! That ought to take at least a year of committee meetings, and sub-committee meetings, and public hearings. By then everyone will be tired of it and it will go away for another five years. Let's see, two more rounds of this charade and it will be 2012 and time for a new Plan! Brilliant!
Like Yogi once said, "It's deja vu all over again".!
May 30 2002,22:42
The Birmingham City Commission took a giant step forward by voting 5-1 (Carney dissenting, Thorsby absent) to contact Andres Duany to obtain a fee proposal to refine the design plan for the Shain Park expansion as illustrated in the 2016 Plan. The motion came after much debate about potential alternate solutions and clearly signals that our BCC is standing behind the Plan and is serious about implementing it despite the controversial nature of the design as it relates to Lot #7.
This is an extremely positive sign of how serious this commission is in proceeding with the Plan! They should be commended and supported for their action in moving this forward.
June 02 2002,17:11
Interesting article in today's Eccentric by Shelley Roberts of the Community House. It seems they have declared "war" on the 2016 Plan, or at least the part that they don't like. They have even offered their terms of a peace settlement: publicly subsidized underground parking for the Community House, though terms of who will control access to the parking deck has been left for future negotiation.
It's interesting that they would start their full court whine already when the only action the BCC took regarding Shain Park was to request Duany to submit a fee proposal for developing the conceptual plan to the next level of detail. Mr. Duany said when he returned to review the ill-fated plan by SVM/Luckenbach that he hoped we would show him the same respect by developing the original idea to the same level of detail. It seems like a perfectly reasonable request and certainly an effort that the citizens who paid for the 2016 Plan deserve.
Does anyone suspect the Community House is worried because the idea is such a BAD idea, or because they fear it really is a GOOD idea?
Nonetheless, Ms. Roberts' reaction did seem a little over the top for an organization dedicated to the social and cultural well-being of our community.
June 03 2002,22:11
The history on Lot #7 is interesting and might clear up some of he myths surrounding its purpose as it relates to the Community House.
Lot #7 once was a block of wood-framed houses dating from the turn of the century, much like the houses immediately to its south. In the middle 1960's, in response to the "new" idea of malls, our city made the commitment to provide off-street parking -- supported by an assessment on the retailers -- to counter the idea that malls were more convenient and had plenty of free parking.
The North Woodward Parking deck was built around 1966 to provide parking near Jacobson's, and the block now known as Lot #7 was purchased to provide parking for the retailers south of Maple.
At the time there as a discussion about placing the parking on what is now Shain Park and moving the park to what is now Lot #7 to get the parking closer to the retail. This is important because the parking in Lot #7 was meant for the retailers and not for the exclusive benefit of the Community House.
Since that time the city has continued its committment to public parking with the construction of the parking decks on Pierce Street, Park Street, Peabody and Chester Street.
The original purpose of Lot #7 as a short-term quick fix for providing parking for the retailers is gone. It served its purpose in buying time for the construction of a series of parking decks, which Duany called "remarkable for a city of Birmingham's size". The system is substantially complete; Duany showed several ways that it could be expanded.
Also during that period, the Community House expanded its facility. At one point, it had the opportunity to purchase adjacent property to meet its own parking needs, but chose not to do so. Though it has claimed repeatedly that Lot #7 is necessary for the convenience of its users (such as moms dropping off kids at day care), it has made no provisions on its own property to accommodate those needs, even though space is available where they now have a maintenance shed.
They have not taken the steps necessary to service their customers, but continue to look to the city and the taxpayers to do it for them. They cite the need for moms to drop off kids at day care, but did not provide a place to do so on their own property when they expanded their building about 12 years ago. They cite the need for convenient nearby parking for their seniors, but do not provide valet parking. They claim they cannot operate competitively as a meeting center or a location for wedding receptions, etc., without parking next to their front door, yet the Townsend has invested millions to create just such a place with full knowledge that Lot #7 would not meet their needs. The Townsend has found other ways to do it.
I think reason and judgment are needed. Reason would tell us that the Community House must step up and shoulder its own burden for parking as does every other merchant in the central business district. Judgment would balance the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens and make Lot #7 the proper civic space we all deserve.
By the way, though virtually every other property owner is assessed a "tax" for the support of the parking system, the Communiy House is exempt because of its non-profit status. And not incidentally, as a concession to the Community House, four-hour parking is allowed at some of the meters in Lot #7, the only place in town that allows that much time.
Posted by Terry Gates
June 03 2002,21:34
I've said it before and will say it again: Rip up Merrill Street between Bates and Henrietta and extend the park all the way to the north wall of Lot # 7. This is a compromise; we all have to bend a little. We will lose 14 parking spots on the street, and gain maybe 4 back with line restriping.
Applause to the BCC for putting this back into play. Kudos to Shelley Roberts for being up-front and honest on what the Community House wants. Now that we are communicating like adults, let's quickly seek a proposal and/or kill this off and move on to the next thing.
11) Birmingham ordinance draws criticism; Chafetz: Intent is to regulate builders
June 5, 2002
From the Oakland Press
What could be controversial about trees? Turns out, quite a bit. In this city, some residents are so worked up about a proposed law to regulate how trees are removed and replaced that many refuse to talk to The Oakland Press about it.
"It's just so controversial," said one woman, who didn't want to be identified because she fears her opinions will turn friends and neighbors against her.
And like the other communities in Oakland County with laws pertaining to trees, Birmingham officials face resistance from some residents who fear a tree ordinance will lead the community down a slippery slope that will strip property owners of their rights. Residents opposed to the plan say the proposal is too vague and restricts rights unfairly.
Commissioner Seth Chafetz said he first asked city staff about a year and a half ago to research a way to regulate builders to make sure trees on neighboring construction sites weren't damaged.
And he said the section of the 19-page proposal that deals with regulating builders will likely be the only part of the law the City Commission will pass.
"A huge majority of our residents respect trees," Chafetz said. "I don't think they need to come to the city if they want to take down a tree. We're attempting to solve the problem of builders damaging trees. That's all."
A public hearing is planned for 8 p.m. Monday at the City Commission chambers, 151 Martin St., to continue discussion about the issue, which at times has been heated.
The reason neighborhood activist Dorothy Conrad supports the law is simple: "Trees improve our neighborhoods," she said. "We don't want to see that go down the drain."
Gary Kulak, chairman of the city's Planning Board and a member of the committee that drafted the proposal, agrees. He said the committee is seeking to protect the environmental and financial stability of the city.
One part of the proposal, which calls for tree replacement, is crucial, he said, adding that if trees aren't replaced as they are removed, it could adversely affect drainage and property values.
"Trees are going to die. Trees are going to be removed," Kulak said. "But we need to replace them."
He said the proposed ordinance is designed to protect trees without infringing on property rights.
"I don't want to be overly restrictive," he said. "As it stands now, we're much less restrictive than other communities like Franklin and Rochester Hills."
Officials in Oxford Township debated for more than a decade about a tree and woodlands ordinance before scrapping the idea last year.
And Orion Township officials passed an amendment to the township's zoning ordinance after a year's work. The law bans clear cutting on properties larger than five acres.
Other municipalities, such as Waterford and West Bloomfield townships, also have woodlands ordinances in place.
12) Communities weigh proposed tree laws
June 5, 2002
From the Detroit Free Press
Whether protecting the environment or preserving a community aesthetic, some city ordinances go as far as requiring that trees on private property be replaced, one for one, if they are removed.
These tree laws aren't easily enforced, but generally they have worked, environmentalists and city planners say. Sensitivity to trees has grown among builders and home owners.
Now West Bloomfield and Birmingham are grappling with proposed tree ordinances. Both are smarting from opposition, mainly from developers.
"It is confiscatory," said Herman Frankel, a West Bloomfield residential builder who is opposed to an ordinance proposal that would limit tree cutting, trimming and removal and protect landmark and older varieties.
Last week, more detractors than supporters turned out at a public hearing over the proposed tree ordinance in West Bloomfield.
As a result, the township will drop a requirement for a permit to remove a tree of at least 6 inches in diameter and one that would have forced home owners to hire a licensed arborist for trimming and removal.
The ordinance would still require nonresidential property owners to save 80 percent of protected trees on a building site and prevent home owners from clear-cutting their property. And, as it's currently written, there is a list of species that are off-limits.
West Bloomfield already has a woodlands ordinance that is designed to preserve and protect trees on properties of 3 acres or more. A tree ordinance would protect individual trees in sensitive areas, like around lakes, Trustee Stuart Brickner said.
Birmingham is also reworking its tree ordinance proposal and has set a public hearing for Monday. Among its provisions, it aims to protect most trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at breast height and those trees designated as landmark trees.
Paul Reagan, president of the Birmingham Council of Homeowner Associations, said his group has not taken an official position on the proposed ordinance, but it supports the protection of older-growth trees.
"Old-growth trees define neighborhoods and give communities a sense of place," Reagan said. "We're concerned that when new construction happens, trees that are on public property are not merely cut down for convenience."
Birmingham City Commissioner Gordon Thorsby acknowledged that the proposal pits personal property rights against "community rights."
"The idea that someone wants to tear down a 300-year-old oak tree for convenience, one wants to see if there's room for protection," he said. "Then there's the question of whether it's a good-quality tree.
"I think a lot of the controversy has to do with how can the average person deal with this on a daily basis," Thorsby said.
At least a half-dozen communities have tree ordinances in Oakland County, including Southfield, Orchard Lake and Waterford.
In Waterford, which passed a woodlands ordinance 13 years ago that includes provisions for small lots, complaints have dwindled. Most come from residents who call about neighbors violating the ordinance, which allows home owners to remove three trees of any size within a 5-year period, said environmental coordinator Stacy Keith. The ordinance also requires that trees be replaced, although not one for one.
"I view it as a scare tactic and to reduce clear-cutting," Keith said. "I think it has worked, for the most part.."
Home owners and builders in Farmington Hills have also gotten used to the city's 14-year-old ordinance, which requires that trees be replaced, one for one, and that permits be obtained to remove trees at least 6 inches in diameter.
"Trees are valuable to builders. We've tried not to be onerous," said Marie Donigan, a landscape architect in the city's planning office. "We've also tried not to be burdensome to single-family home owners.."
13) Township hugs trees too tight, some say; pressured, W. Bloomfield will revise plan
June 5, 2002
From the Detroit News
WEST BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP -- This community's gardeners can break out the trimmers again, as the township revises a proposed tree-protection ordinance that was so restrictive it would have required residents to call in a tree service every time they wanted to prune their yards.
The proposal drew criticism from property-rights advocates and environmentalists alike.
"They were trying to do what we asked. They just did too much," said Lorna McEwen, president of the Oakland Land Conservancy and member of Concerned Citizens for West Bloomfield, a community conservation group.
West Bloomfield, known for zealous protection of its few remaining patches of undeveloped wetlands and woodlands, has tried for years to draw up guidelines to protect smaller wooded areas like back yards.
McEwen recalls standing in her own yard and watching as a new neighbor moved into her West Bloomfield subdivision and promptly cut down every single tree on the lot, trees the developer had painstakingly preserved throughout the home's construction. Trees not only shade a property and prevent erosion, but they also can prevent basement floods by absorbing runoff.
The township's current woodlands ordinance only protects trees on lots of three acres or larger.
"They weren't my trees, I know, but if every lot did that, the township would be diminished," McEwen said.
But even the environmentalists were taken aback by the first draft of the tree ordinance the township board debated in April. The ordinance was so restrictive, and so specific, it delved into the minutia of the number of branches that would or would not be protected by the law and required most tree prunings to be performed by licensed tree services.
West Bloomfield's proposed ordinance was patterned after a similar statute in neighboring Orchard Lake and would protect healthy trees with trunks six inches or wider in diameter, and taller than 4 1/2 feet tall -- and require homeowners to replace every tree they cut down with others.
An estimated 30 communities in the region have tree-protection ordinances. West Bloomfield, Novi, Rochester Hills and Farmington Hills have some of the most stringent protections. Milford Township [and Birmingham] is debating a similar ordinance.
Although builders and property owners sometimes complain that tree ordinances increase construction costs, county officials say woodlands benefit the environment and the home owner's bottom line.
"In the long term, they will find that there is an economic benefit, as well as an environmental benefit," said Larry Falardeau, principal planner for the county's environmental stewardship program. "Trees are an important component of our community -- hence the name, Oakland County."
14) Architect Ziegelman earns AIA's highest honor
June 2, 2002
From the Birmingham Eccentric
By Larry Ruehlen
For his 40 years of contributions to the architectural landscape in Birmingham and beyond, Bob Ziegelman has been awarded a gold medal by the American Institute of Architects Michigan.
The award is the organization's highest honor and goes to an architect with the most distinguished body of work. Ziegelman received the medal at a May 3 ceremony at the Cranbrook Academy of Art.
"It's nice to be recognized for a career when you think you have been working in obscurity," said Ziegelman. "And it's particularly nice when your peers recognize your body of work."
Ziegelman's designs - 35 in all - are sprinkled throughout the city. From the Briggs building on Maple and Old Woodward to the Munder Capital building at 480 Pierce, Ziegelman is noted for having a deft touch that allows his buildings to make a creative statement that doesn't detract from surrounding structures. He said proper use of scale, form and materials are all integral to good architecture and Birmingham buildings require close attention to all three.
Ziegelman's firm, Luckenbach/Ziegelman and Partners, have worked on many noteworthy designs including the Pontiac Silverdome, Ann Arbor's University of Michigan Business School and the world headquarters of the Kresge Foundation, in Battle Creek.
He said he is particularly proud of the fact that three of his firm's designs were chosen as "great places" by readers of The Eccentric.
15) To be removed, send a request to info@bhambuzz.org.
Page 1 of 1 pages