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?