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.