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?