Almost surprised someone hasn't tried to recall Granholm...

     No, I'm not recommending it (despite her faults); just almost surprised someone hasn't pulled that trick...

Not much of a point recalling her now, as we're so close to the next election, anyhow. Dick DeVos can start measuring for the drapes, because she is "done." Hopefully we can also score a two-fer by deposing "Dangerously Incompetent" Stabenow. ;-D

Michigan law doesn't allow recall petitions to be filed in the first or last six months of an official's term.

In theory, recall petitions could be filed by June 30 against any official whose term ends December 31, but it's too late to make the August ballot, so the recall election would be in November when they're running for re-election. Seems pointless to me.

Moreover, there's an automatic 10 to 20 day delay in the process of getting the text of the reasons for recall approved for clarity.

Edited by author 06-29-2006 07:36 PM
I have been active in the Pittsfield recall campaign. Some might charge that recall campaigns have spun out of control beginning with the California Governor's office. I also understand the emotional and financial burden elected officials face defending themselves against such attacks.

I can't speak for recall campaigns in other locales, but, the recall effort in Pittsfield is about poor leadership. Many believe the recall effort is really about the pending Wal-Mart at State Road and Michigan Ave. The Wal-Mart itself is not the issue, but rather the officials' actions regarding the Wal-Mart were merely the last straw. These officials, have a long and well-documented history of self-serving agendas that have burdened the residents for far too long. We recently compiled a list of examples of self-serving behavior of these officials for a lit drop in the community. We found that one page wasn't enough to capture all of our examples.

Before we conclude that recalls are spinning out of control, perhaps we should take a look at the performance of those recall targets. The efforts to put a recall vote on a ballot is no easy task. It takes lots of hard work by many people. I can only assume that citizens in other parts of the country are also fed up with poor leadership.

Edited by author 07-01-2006 11:38 AM
I live in a township in Monroe County and have gathered petition signatures for more than one recall over the last 10 years. Some of our recalls have been successful, some haven't.

Some people say we should not recall because, obviously, the majority elected these people. The problem is that the majority do not come to the monthly meetings or get involved in the day to day business of the township. A lot of times people are elected just because voters recognize their names or heard about them. People are not always elected by voters who have educated themselves on the issues.

Only a handful of citizens really get involved and become the watchdogs, so only a handful really know what's happening. That handful are the ones who usually do the recalls because of the wrongdoings of the officials.

I do think the law should require that the reasoning on the top of the petitions be truthful and not just clear. One has to go to court for the clarity hearing, so why not make the petitioner prove his allegations.

In the recalls I was involved in, all the facts were truthful and provable. That was not true in our most recent recall of the clerk and treasurer where false allegations were used, yet the wording was clear so it passed. Two officials got recalled based on lies that the wording was easy to understand but not truthful.

Requiring the allegations to be true would not violate a citizens right to recall but it might make it more fair.

Now from someone who has used recalls as a last resort. Our officials were breaking the FOIA laws, the Open Meetings Act over and over with secret meetings, spending money without prior approval, entering into contracts without prior approval and without bidding them out, violated tons of elections laws. The list could go on and on.

We went to the Attorney General several times and was told we have to go through the county prosecuting attorney. We went to the county PA and he said we had to file police reports in order to get to his office.

But he warned us that we may think our complaints are valid but "there are entirely too many rapes, robberies and murders in Monroe County for US to give it the attention YOU think it deserves."

Citizens did a lawsuit that cost thousands but the judge said Yes they violated OMA.....but oops, they didn't do it on purpose. He said you can't expect local townships to "follow the law as well as Grand Rapids, Lansing and Kalamazoo." Hmm, I think I'll try that the next time a cop stops me for speeding and say "I'm from that stupid little rural township. You can't expect me to follow the same laws the city slickers do :)" Do you think that cop is going to let me off because I'm not as smart and slick as the city folk? But the judge did in the lawsuit even after admitting they broke the law.

The last resort was recall. It took 2 attempts but we finally got the supervisor out.

We haven't won the war in our township but we've won some skirmishes. The crooked assessor resigned. The insufficient clerk resigned. All the Board of review resigned.

Then the opposition decided "Hey, you don't have to tell the truth on the recall petitions, you only have to be clear." So after two attempts at wording,they managed to take out two of the good guys left in office (the clerk and treasurer) by telling lie after lie. But it worked. They convinced the uninformed citizens of our township that these guys were bad so they voted to recall. In our township, dishonesty pays.

The laws governing governmental bodies should have some teeth and penalties that are enforced on the law breaking officials. Then there wouldn't be as many recalls.

It's too easy to use false claims and (in the case of Pittsfield) out and out lies by the petition signature gatherers to get a recall approved. While some recalls are justified, many others are just based on sour grapes. In the case of the one in Pittsfield Twp, it appears just to be a attempt to keep "those people" out of Saline, MI. The people who are calling for the recall all love Wallmart -- they just don't want one, and the crowd it brings, in their back yard.

Fortunatly, the final vote is by the people... unfortunatly it wastes a lot of money getting there.

G

Greg,
I can only assume that you don't live in Pittsfield or are a friend of one of the triumvirate. As a petition gatherer, not once did I make any false statements to my fellow citizens. I urged each person to read the petition language. Oftentimes they had questions about the officials and I provided more examples of what I deemed poor leadership of the township. The petitions were certified by the county and a judge threw out the lawsuit by the officials regarding the certification.

I agree the language should be truthful moreso than simply clear, but that in itself I imagine would require an investigation, evidence gathering, hearings, and the like at additional taxpayer expense and time.

Hey Kirk (and all),
I do live in Pittsfield and have so for more than 10 years. When I first moved here I learned that a huge housing development was planned for the land just to the south of my home, in the central area of the township. There were neither water, sewer or roads to support that development so I joined in fighting against it. Now the township has saved that land to help keep the "feel" of open/ruralness that we all moved here for (except those who moved here to dodge Ann Arbor taxes).

I also know that the land that the Walmart is planned for is zoned for commercial buildings and has been so for the last several versions of the master plan. Saline chose to build it's new schools across the road from that planned zoning, so it should have been no surprise that a major "big box" store was sited there. The township can only do so much to stop a landowner from using his/her land for the zoned purpose. The township did that. Any more and they'd just waste our tax money getting sued.

I know that the board is filled with people who are pretty low on the political savvy scale (heck that's why they're on a township board and not running for state government). But they are not breaking any laws or doing anything that endangers the people of our township and therefore merit recall. If they are just bad officials, do the american thing and vote them out in a regular election rather than a poorly attended August 8th primary (where only the Republicans have candidates).

In any case, no one came knocking on my door to get my signature. I live on a dirt road, with only 3 neighbors - not in a densely packed sub or condo. So why don't you post what you told people while gathering there signatures. We'll compare that to the facts and see.

I just find it very annoying when people use loopholes, backdoors or try to win baseball games by stealing bases and not getting honest runs.

Greg

Greg,
Since no one knocked on your door to ask for your signature on the recall petition, then how do you know what the facts are regarding the manner in which the signatures were gathered?

I, too, have lived in Pittsfield for some time and I am aware of the failed Newmarket development and 535-acre park that resulted from the efforts of you, 'Tina and a few other neighbors to oppose it. It is pointless to debate the issues that Newmarket may have created, but the fact remains that the township spent more than $11M of our money to protect land adjacent to her property from being developed. I salute her efforts in winning her personal struggle...and you in yours, but that move was not in the best interests of the township. Let's not discuss why because that is an entirely new thread.

Suffice to say that ANewPittsfield.org contains documented proof of the wrongdoing and self-protectionist actions by the triumvirate. For example, Tina complained about the salaries of township officials in her "watchdog" newsletter, but has since approved raises of her salary of approximately 25% since she gained office. Thanks to them and our $11M park, we now have a bond when the township was previously bond-free. Our cash balance has decreased from $14M to the legal minimum of $8M under Tina's watch. Our water, sewer and garbage rates have experienced double-digit increases since Tina took office. Now, we even get to pay a monthly charge for our water meters...and we already own them.

This is but a mere sample. I haven't even gone into the specific language on the recall, the current investigation by the Secretary of State, or any of the brow-beating techniques employed by the triumvirate and Tina's psychotic husband.

If you want to know more, then I encourage you to visit ANewPittsfield.org and see for yourself.

Edited by author 07-13-2006 09:45 AM
Kirk,

While no one knocked on my door, I do know people who did have a visit. I have heard second hand what was stated and it was misleading. I have also seen this sited in the AA News and other sources.

I know what I've seen posted on your website, pittsfield first the other website http://www.pittsfieldtruth.com/ and it's all he said, she said. However, it's not pointless to debate the issues such as Newmarket and others.

Look at the traffic load on Platt (backed ups over 1 mile long at 4pm); both State and Ellsworth are parking lots; Michigan Ave/US 12 is the same. How much gas does your SUV burn though trying to get home?

While the purchase of the Newmarket land was costly, it is little compared to the infrastructure changes that the township has had to make to meet the needs of the rapid development within it's borders. The master plan was not followed by the previous board and now because of all the home building, the township has had to take on debt to build or improve water and sewer facilities and upgrade roads. If there is a bond, that's why there's a bond - the land purchase is an investment in the future. No new land will ever be created in Pittsfield - this is all we've got - let's carve out a bit for breathing space.

On another point, you did not post the points you used from you signature gathering, so I still have to go with the allegations that I've seen (in AA news and other sources) that you all mislead signers and that you might have modified the petitions after signing.

And again, you dodge the talking points by pointing to a website where all will be explained. There's nothing on there about the recall points. The "alleged criminal activity" the site referances is all post recall effort. What do you have to show from before the recall, what are your real points for recalling? Why are we wasting this money?

In addition, all the "alleged criminal activities" you have are related to typing emails and some website copy on township computers. That's certainly endangering the people of the township (not). Unwarranted computer use, ha! -- how much of the recall effort have you done at work? BTW - Your previous message was posted at 2:41, I think that that's potentially on company time, should I tell your boss and get you fired too?

This is all ridiculous, just as I originally said. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention should dismiss you all for sour grapes and I revert to _my_ original allegation -

"In the case of the one in Pittsfield Twp, it appears just to be a attempt to keep "those people" (aka Wallmart Shoppers) out of Saline, MI. The people who are calling for the recall all love Wallmart -- they just don't want one, and the crowd it brings, in their back yard."

Show me proof that these people are realy breaking laws and I'll believe you. Meanwhile, I'll take a copy of your site and keep it on hand for any replacements - I'll just change the names and it can be used against anyone.

Greg

Greg,
You've drifted in too many directions, so I am no longer sure what your focus is. Nevertheless, yes, I posted here on company time using a company computer. My employer frowns on that type of behaviour, yet it is legal. Meyer's use of township resources for personal activities is illegal. There is a big difference. I also drive a sub-compact car and not an SUV (sorry, but your assumed image of me as a careless, wasteful suburbanite is incorrect).

Regarding infrastructure of the township, I agree Newmarket needed additional water supply and roads. It seems we now have a new water tower with an ample supply of water, so let's concentrate on the roads.

York Township just gained support from MDOT and WCRC to improve Platt and Willis to accommodate 400 employees at Toyota's new tech center near US23. Pittsfield Township could have used the same resources to improve roads surrounding Newmarket in the same manner. And by the way, if Newmarket was going to be such a burden on roads already overstressed, then what do you think is going to happen to those same roads plus State Rd. and Michigan Ave. when Wal-Mart arrives? A new turn lane at State and Michigan is not going to make a dent in the 20,000 cars that will travel down that road daily.

But back to the issue at hand...the petitions. What you read in the AANews about misleading the signers is not an allegation by AANews. That allegation is being made by the triumvirate and printed in the AANews. Would you expect the three to say otherwise? After all, their jobs are on the line. If you were Christina, wouldn't you do anything you could to protect your job when the alternative is to return to waiting tables at the Fleetwood. Treasurer pays a lot more...plus she voted to increase her government-sponsored pension and have it vested after 8 years in office. She is going to do everything in her power to ensure she gets that pension, including baseless accusations against her opponents.

Above all, don't forget that Larry's office certified the signatures and a county judge threw out their lawsuit to invalidate the certification.

But let me ask you...and you don't need to type an answer, just decide for yourself. This is the 1st time I have ever engaged in political activism at any level. I have donated money to support this cause. I trudged through snow and ice this winter past collecting signatures in sub-zero temperatures. I have a wife, 2 children and a dog with whom I could have spent those evenings and weekends. Do you really believe that I would have given up that much of myself for a frivolous action? Would you go to such great lengths for any action you deemed frivolous?

I agree that we are talking about local issues...no abortion, civil rights, national security, stem-cell research. For us, local issues really come down to public safety and growth management, which of course affect our schools, local infrastructure, local taxes and utility costs...in other words, a healty environment for our families. Nevertheless, these are issues which I believe to be important.

I joined the recall effort because I believe there are better alternatives to the current leadership that should not have to wait until 2006. The law allows us to take this action and we are doing so. And let's not characterize this as a loophole. The law specifically states our rights to take this action and it spells out the conditions in which we may act; it is not some fuzzy interpretation.

ANewPittsfield.org will continue to be updated with information. We have sent out flyers highlighting many bullitt points to residents who signed the petition simply to validate our points to them again. Since you did not sign the petition, you did not get a copy.

Regarding Wal-Mart, you are correct. We don't want it in our backyard because our backyard happens to be near an already congested Michigan Avenue and several schools. We prefer it to be in a location that can better meet the traffic and that is away from our schools. Weren't you opposed to Newmarket also because of concerns about traffic?

Finally, you wrote, "Saline chose to build it's new schools across the road from that planned zoning, so it should have been no surprise that a major "big box" store was sited there." Am I now obligated to put my children in harm's way because their school was located on this tract of land? Do I as a parent not have a right to affect change to secure the safety and well-being of my children? Christina will most certainly agree with me...after all, she has road signs installed on either side of her property warning passing motorists of her disabled child.

Edited by author 07-17-2006 10:38 AM
I have not drifted, just tried to cover all the directions you've gone and talk to what's at the heart of the recall discussion.

Meanwhile, back to the discussion... I started out on this thread just saying that the petition gatherers were telling lies to get people to sign. You, Kirk, claimed to be one of the petitioners, so I asked that you post what you told people. You have failed to do this time after time, so I guess I'm correct and you don't want to show the mis-information that you've spread.

In addtion, you wrote:
"Am I now obligated to put my children in harm's way because their school was located on this tract of land?"

The answer is yes and if Wallmart or any other store sited there is unsafe for schools & children, then you should bring that up with the Saline schoolboard. Ask them why they sighted their schools so close to such dangerous zoning and traffic. Don't burn the township officials for what the schoolborad has done.

I think that your orgnaization would be better served by gathering petitions and promises that your neighbors will not shop at the Wallmart if sited there - then send that to Wallmart. The only thing that brings that store to Saline is the pull of shoppers.

Oh and by the way you have to update your website, the Township officials have been cleared of any wrong doing.
"The Michigan Secretary of State has cleared two Pittsfield Township officials of allegations they misused township resources as part of their campaign against a recall."

See - http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf...55246860.xml&coll=2


Greg

Greg,
Like I said, there are too many points of discussion that arose during my petition gathering to list here. Also, my points of discussion were based on the interests of the individuals. Therefore, my "pitch" was never the same. Residents asked me questions in many different areas. The more houses I visited, the more educated I became. Therefore, my points of discussion expanded more and more every day. Funny that it was these discussions with the residents that strengthened my resolve. I found so many people who were upset with the township or wanted to hear more that I knew every day that my course of action was indeed a benefit to the town. I can't speak to the outcome of this campaign, but I know in my heart that I am right and I have too many facts to validate my point of view.

Our website has been updated and include many of the points of discussion that I and others have raised with the township. It is pointless of you to insist that I recant verbatim what I told to residents during my petition gathering. They by and large are summarized in the reformatted version of the website. www.ANewPittsfield.org.

As far as going back to the Saline school district to complain about past actions, that would be pointless. I doubt my complaints will render a decision to tear down the schools and rebuild somewhere else. They are now built and that is a fact. So, I must make do with what I have to work with and that is to elevate my point of view to the township.

I have said before that Wal-Mart itself is not the issue. I disagree with the decision to put the Wal-Mart there, but that is merely a single point for my decision to engage in this recall campaign. I am campaigning to oust poor leadership that has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the needs of the township beyond the area of Textile and Platt. I am neither for nor against development and commerce in the township. I support responsible growth. Bring the infrastructure to support Wal-Mart and direct Wal-Mart's traffic away from the schools and I have no complaints about Wal-Mart.

That alone will not change the way I feel about the triumvirate. Those three will continue to serve themselves and their friends in the township beyond any Wal-Mart issues.

You may refuse to believe anything I have written here tonight and that is fine with me. I sleep well knowing that I am fighting to protect the safety of my children and my property against those who stand to profit from its demise.

Incidentally, Pittsfield Community First submitted 6,400 signatures to Wal-Mart representatives in February on the same night that the Planning Commission approved the final site plan requesting them to locate elsewhere. Wal-Mart basically told those people to go to Hell. They weren't interested in the impact of their store on residents because they attract a customer base in a 20 mile radius. And yes, your street will also be affected. When shoppers can't get through on Michigan or State, then they will surely take Platt. But don't take my word for what the Wal-Mart rep said...read it for yourself if you have the time. http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/boards/Planni...tes/Feb_02_2006.pdf

Edited by author 08-01-2006 01:06 PM
Looks like the Pittsfield Township officials just put a noose around their own necks. In spite of their anti-development platform that got them in office in the first place, they have now run to developers (and those outside the township I might add) looking for support. Of the more than $20,000 they have collected to defend themselves in this recall, only $230 have come from supporters who live in Pittsfield. The bulk has come from Laurence Deitch (UofM Regent) and his cronies over in Bloomfield Hills.

But don't take my word for it. Check out the links at http://www.anewpittsfield.org that lead you to the PAC info. This is all public record. By comparison, you will notice that all financial contributors of the recall effort are residents of Pittsfield.

Hi to all interested Pittsfield folks reading this (Kirk, you don't need to reply with any more rumors or display the fervent lack of reality that exists in your subdivision)

Fortunately the truth on the recall issues got published today (9/2/06). The Ann Arbor News has published a point-by-point rebuttal of the recaller’s points, showing that there is no evidence to support the recall.

You can read it yourself, but just to summarize -

- Recall backers claim: Voted to raise pension payout for elected officials by 50%. The Township Supervisor, Treasurer and Clerk are fully vested after only 8 years.
* The truth is: The changes in question were actually enacted in 1996 and 1991. Long before the current board was seated.

- Recall backers claim: Increased tax rates
* The truth is: The tax rate (for the township - not counting the Saline Schools OR the increase in home value) has been stable, even dropping in some years.
  Mills: '00 5.373, '01 5.234, '02 5.037, '03-'06 5.195

- Recall backers claim: Township Board voted to use $200,000 of your tax dollars to directly help Treasurer Lirones earn $150,000 in State Land Grants for her personal property.
* The truth is: That no money was given to the official for preservation, and that the board voted to exclude her property from receiving township funds.

- Recall backers claim: that the board has accumulated the townships first debt.
* The truth is: That the township had debt before for major undertakings (like the blue water tower next to I-94)

- Recall backers claim: Township officials spent $6M of the $14M reserve they got from the previous board
* The truth is: They started with $7.68M and now there is $7.96M (simple math says that's an increase)

Unfortunately, John Mulcahy was allowed to print that article without checking his facts. Everyone of those claims are in fact true. For example, the township did put up $200,000 and Christina did get the grant for $150,000. It was only recently that someone got wise and decided that was not a good idea. But it still happened and it was printed last winter in the same local paper that you seem to put so much faith it.

I don't want to go into detail, but the other claims are all true as well. John failed to mention the other 12 claims againt the township. He declined to mention those...increased water rates, sewer rates, garbage collection. Why do we now have a charge on our water meters? We already own our meters.

Anyway, the list goes on and on. Feel free to ignore the latest news of how they have sold out to the developers at your own risk. As for me, I am voting "yes".

Edited by author 08-06-2006 01:37 PM
Three comments:

One, the Wal-Mart location was zoned for commercial long before Saline schools or any new residential development went into that area. I probably still have an old zoning map around that shows that. I'm no fan of Wal-Mart and won't shop there. But it shows poor planning by the schools, who don't have to abide by zoning, to locate there and poor judgment by people who moved there and now complain that commercial development is going into that location.

Two, the claim that Pittsfield is incurring its first debt (which some are now claiming is not true anyways) as signs of fiscal mismanagement just shows that proponents of the recall don't know the first thing about municipal government. Local governments issue bonds to pay for projects, just like you take out loans to pay for things like your house, car, etc. Are you going to tell us that you live debt-free? If so, congratulations. But you would be the exception, just like it would be the exception to find a local government that's never issues bonds. It's entirely legal and especially in growing communities, preferably so that the burden for improvements is shared by future taxpayers vesus paying it all front, even when the benefits also accrue to those who don't live in Pittsfield yet.

Three, the claim that Pittsfield is fiscally mismanaged because it "only" has an A+ bond rating is equally laughable. Do the people who make this claim even know what they are talking about? There's only a handful of communities in the entire US that get AAA bond ratings. A+ is a good bond rating for a community of Pittsfield size. Or are all of those other communities also fiscally mismanasged?

When you can't even get the basics right, it's hard to take your claims seriously.

Re: Newmarket

That proposed development was a give away by the then Republican Board. It proposed a development that far exceeded the previous zoning and master plan and as was previously noted would have overtaxed the water, sewers and roads in the area. That board was thrown out of office largely on that issue so there was clearly support across the Township to stop Newmarket.

The Republicans have been trying to avenge that loss for years and Kirk's comments in support of the Newmarket development and his advocacy for spending more money of utitilies and roads to support that development should give you an inkling of where he's coming from on this issue. I know that there are Democrats supporting the recall. But it makes you wonder if they are being manipulated by the good-old-boy Republican crowd so that they can return a Republican majority to the board. When that happens, watch out, sprawl will be rolling across what's left of open space in Pittsfield.

For whatever knocks you want to make on the current board, their track record for parkland and open space preservation and farmland preservation alone is heads and shoulders above what preceeded them. Newmarket is a gem - what other community can boast having this kind of open space for future generations. There's the new park that was acquired this year on Platt. Also, the Township has gotten state funding for parks improvements. The township has also gotten several grants for farmland preservation and no, it wasn't going just to protect the Lirones property. How come the Board doesn't get any credit for these efforts that are a benefit to all Township residents (or do you prefer having wall-to-wall subdivisions with no parks and open space)?

Edited by author 08-07-2006 07:52 PM
John Q.
For some reason, you and a few others believe that we should simply let our children be put in harm's way because the township never addressed the issue of putting schools close to land zoned for commercial use. I really don't think telling my child "tough s**t" is the best we as a community can do.

ANP never suggested A+ was a bad rating. It is an average rating. The Treasurer continues to tout that rating as some mark of financial genius on her part. It is merely average.

Yes, I agree that having a bond in and of itself is not a bad thing. The township had total reserves of approximately $14M ($7M in the general fund and $7M in the reserve fund). We now have $8M, unusable park space and debt. The only thing we have to show for it is a new water tower that has resulted in steep increases in our water and sewer bills. Apparently, they paid off the bill for the tower early, but at what cost to us?

If you haven't noticed, your property assessment went up this year. Did you know that home prices in Washtenaw Country have actually fallen for the past two years? Why don't our property tax assessments reflect what is happening in the market? Why? Because if the township showed reduced property tax revenue, then our wonderful A+ bond rating would be at risk.

Check your records, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I support a development like Newmarket because it recreated urbanism and enhanced community living. If you haven't noticed, suburban sprawl has taken a huge toll on us with ever-increasing costs...to the environment, to commute distances, to gas prices, and on and on. I would love to live in a neighborhood like Newmarket and it has nothing to do with paving over the township and padding the pockets of developers.

And by the way, if you are so antidevelopment, then please give me your thoughts on how the triumvirate has sold out to the very developers they promised to hold in check. It seems the money from the developers in Bloomfield Hills continues to flow into their campaign to fight the recall...more than $20,000 to date. Given the number of glossy ads they have mailed to everyone, I'd say it has probably reached $30K by now.

I chose to make Pittsfield my home and I am willing to fight to make it a better place to live.

Regarding the park land acquisition. I agree the township didn't have enough park land prior to the Preserve. If you look at the township's own park land study, however, you will now find that even in the year 2030 we will an excess of parkland that is more than 250 acres above the national recommendation based on the projected population. While we needed more park space, we certainly don't need this much. This year alone we have purchased more than 70 additional acres of park land..42 acres of which borders Commissioner Ward's property. Apparently, if you are an elected official in Pittsfield or a friend of one, then you get park land next to your home. The rest of us get Wal-Mart.

Kirk,

Your problem is that you're commenting on a lot of topics where it's clear that you're either just repeating what someone has told you or think you know a lot about the issue when it's obvious you don't. That's fine, everyone has to learn. But don't act like the expert on issues where you are not. Stick to what you know, not what you think you know.

On to the points:

"While we needed more park space, we certainly don't need this much. "

You're right, we need more development and the increased cost on Township services. The national standards aren't one size fits all formulas and the idea that you can have too much parkland is laughable. Parkland and open space have been shown to benefit communities. Again, if you think a community the size of Pittsfield has too much parkland, then you obviously have a mind-set that I can't change.

"really don't think telling my child "tough s**t" is the best we as a community can do."

OK, please tell us what the Township should do. Rezone the Wal-Mart parcel? Go for it! The legal fees will dwarf any costs the Township's incurred so far. Also, please tell us about how you protested to the school district about placing the schools next to commercially zoned property. You did protest to the school board, didn't you?

"ANP never suggested A+ was a bad rating. It is an average rating."

No, it's not an average rating. Contrary to what you keep implying, it's not the middle of the curve here. It's a good rating for municipalities. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, stop repeating this.

"Yes, I agree that having a bond in and of itself is not a bad thing."

Then why does the ANP website suggest that incurring a debt is not fiscally responsible? Plus, your comments contradict yourself. You imply that the $6 million was wasted but then turn around and admit that the Township has a new water tower and parkland (which you claim is unusable - if it's unusable, how was Newmarket going to be built?). The tower and the land have value. What's the problem here? The township spent money on capital items. Also, contrary to what the ANP site claims, $8 million is a healthy fund balance. It's not "the minimum required by law." The minimum required by law is $0. Most municipalities in Michigan would love to have $8 million in the bank.

"Why don't our property tax assessments reflect what is happening in the market?"

Because by state law, the assessments are based on a two-year period, not the current year. Or do you think Township officials should ignore the law to lower your assessment?

"I support a development like Newmarket because it recreated urbanism and enhanced community living."

It did? How? By building a new community in an area where there was no infrastucture and by destroying open space? New Urbanism creates place of density and preserves open space. Newmarket only proposed to preserve what it couldn't develop. It was a horrible idea and it's good that it never came to fruition. Pittsfield is surrounded by urban areas - Ann Arbor, Ypsi, Saline and Milan. Why are you intent on paving over the remaining open space?

If I was up for recall, would I have taken money from developers? No. But you haven't provided any evidence that these contributions have had any impact on how the officials vote. Stick to the facts, not insinuations.

One more thing - no matter what the outcome of the election, "A New Pittsfield" and supporters like you have created a no-win situation for whoever serves on the Board in the future. Why? Because you've made so many wild claims that are divorced from reality that no one is ever going to be able to live up to them. It's very unlikely that Pittsfield will ever garner a AAA+ rating for any bonds it issues in the future. Yet, according to ANP, anyone who gets merely an A+ bond is "average" and probably fiscally incompetent. Need to do a debt issue to pay for a capital project? Again, according to ANP, that's a sign of fiscal irresponsibility. Tax assessments going up while neighborhood values go down? Something must be crooked at Township Hall. Township employees go without a contract for 9 months (horrors!) - then you must be a bad public official.

It will be interesting to see how the recall goes. If the 3 officials get ousted and ANP members get appointed, it will be very interesting to see if they can live up to their own standards. I'm betting they won't and we'll see what Kirk has to say then.

I disagree about creating a no win situation, but it's pointless to debate at this time. Let's put it to a vote!

Are you going to hold future officeholders to the same standards? Like accusing them of fiscal mismanagement when they "only" get an A+ bond rating on future bonds? Or will they be accused of fiscal mismanagement if they actually need to issue bonds?