Larry,
First of all, I respect an elected official who would choose to take a public stance on this issue...even though your opinion happens to be the politically correct one.

Nevertheless, I must disagree.

As far as the salaries go, I don't think they are outrageous, but I have a hard time understanding the level of pay given the size of the township relative to others nearby such as Ypsilanti. What's more, I find it difficult to swallow officials approving increases in their salaries when for 2 years they couldn't agree on a new police contract. And our police pay appears to be lower than those of surrounding townships, at least according to some of our police. Finally, Lirones even complained in one of her "Watchdog" newsletters that officials' salaries were too high. If they indeed were too high, then how could she in good conscience approve her own salary increases by 24% since 2000?

I also disagree that the township is powerless to stop this big box store from building here. Small municipalities across the country, including some here in Michigan, have succeeded in preventing Wal-mart from entering their communities. And we are not trying to stop Wal-mart from doing business in the township, but rather we are trying to prevent them from doing so next to 3,000 school children. It is the officials' unwillingness to try to fight, to heed the voices of the citizenry, that was the final straw resulting in this campaign.

Perhaps you have heard by now that our officials are indeed in the hip pockets of developers. In spite of running on an anti-development platform, these 3 officials have embraced support of developers from Bloomfield Hills, including Larry Deitch, in their fight against the recall. Why would developers in Bloomfield Hills care about the ouster of officials in Pittsfield? Could it possibly be that these desperate officials have sold promises to these land grabbers in order to save their jobs? I can't say for sure, but it sure looks that way. Of the $20,000+ in PAC contributions to support these officials, a measly $230 has come from inside the community. The rest has come from these developers in Bloomfield Hills.

Now more than ever, I know that the actions we have taken to rid ourselves of these people is justified.

As for the aftermath, I seriously doubt that developers will run roughshod over the deputies once they assume office for 3 months until the elections. It seems the developers have already run roughshod over the 3 elected officials.

I don't like Wal-Mart as a company, and I don't plan to shop there. Ever.

Still, this whole recall business has not swayed me. I am not sure it is a Wal-mart issue, not really. As someone on Arbor Update noted, who made the decision to place public schools in a vulnerable place? Are those decision-makers being targeted?

The recall is just a poor effort to get some good people kicked out of office via a loop-hole. The recallers have no hard evidance that there is any wrong doing, they just want to blame someone for the fact that Saline built new schools in a poor location. Walmart bought the property 4 years ago, Saline built their schools there 2 years ago - this isn't a township issue, it's a school district one.

They are unrealistic and must live in a subdivision echo-chamber. Time and again, they've made up accusations and shown obtuse viewpoints regaurding how laws work. Since these "accusations" alwasy fall apart under scrutiny -- it's just base mud-slinging.

Edited by author 08-04-2006 06:21 PM
Greg, your arguments about the school are pointless. Like I said in another thread, no one is going to tear down the schools and relocate them. Your timeline of events is off a bit as well. The schools were completed 2 years ago. They planned the schools on that site long before Wal-mart came calling. And I would be surprised if Wal-mart owned that property.

None of my accusations have fallen apart. Everything we list on our literature and website are true. John Mulcahy's assertions about our claims being incorrect are themselves incorrect. One of our reps sat down with him prior to his latest article and went through each point. He then disregarded that discussion and altered the interpretation of our points so that he could bring in irrelevant data.

Greg, what really seems to be happening is that you joined forces with Christina to fend off Newmarket and now you feel a sense of loyalty to her. If you take away the loyalty, then you will find an official who was elected on the promise of reining in development. Only now she and her cohorts have taken in thousands of dollars from the same people she vowed to fight.

Mom in Pittsfield, you are correct. It is not a Wal-mart issue. It is an issue of our officials disregarding the voice of the people. It is about elected officials who dismiss our concerns, try to intimidate us and as we are now finding out, break their campaign promises of fighting development.

Edited by author 08-07-2006 01:23 AM
The schools purchased that property long after the property was zoned for commercial development. So the schools built in that location knowing that something the size of Wal-Mart was possible. So your anger is misdirected. If you don't like the fact that the schools are located next to a commercial development, take it up with the school board. They are the ones who chose to build there. If Wal-Mart leaves, it doesn't change the zoning and you're going to have commercial development there. But feel free to try and change the zoning if you get your way with the recall. I'm sure you'll get the Township a quick trip to Circuit Court for their troubles.

Edited by author 08-07-2006 08:07 PM
Yes, you and others continue to press us to point the finger at the schools for this. Shall I ask them to tear down the schools? Shall I offer to pay for them to build new schools elsewhere? The fact of the matter is that the schools have been built. Right or wrong, they are built. Building a Wal-Mart next to it is a wrong that we have time to correct.

Here is a word for you: rezoning. Simply because an area is zoned commercial doesn't mean it has to remain commercial for infinity. The township has had 4 years to address the zoning at State Road and they have refused to do so. You contended that Newmarket would have brought in too many people to the township, yet you think nothing of the additional 20,000 cars per day that will drive down Michigan Ave, State Road and Platt Road on their way to Wal-Mart.

I don't subscribe to any notion that Wal-Mart would sue the township if we declined their site plans. Now that their final site plan has been approved then we surely cannot stop them from a legal standpoint. Nevertheless, communities in Michigan and other states have successfully prevented Wal-Mart and other big box stores from building in undesireable locales.

I believe in protecting the safety of my children and I am willing to fight for that safety.

Kirk,

As I asked on the other post, I'm assuming that you protested to the school board for selecting such a poor location to build a school. You did do that, didn't you? Or are you a selective in your criticism? I'm not asking you to ask them to tear down the schools, I'm just checking to see if you've been consistent in your criticism or if you think it was A-OK for the schools to build in that location knowing that commercial development could have gone in at any time.

You are correct, the area could be rezoned. I would guarantee that the next day, a lawsuit would be filed in Circuit Court. I can just about guarantee you that within no time, a judge would rule against the Township. If we're lucky, the judge would award legal fees and rule that the Township allow the development to move forward based on the previous zoning. If we're less lucky, the judge would allow the development to move forward and would bar the township from enforcing any rules that it considered as unnecessary. If we're really unlucky, the development moves forward, the judge bars the township from enforcing any rules that the court considers unnecessary and awards damages against the Township for attempting to block the development.

I have to say that I feel pretty sorry for you because no matter what the outcome of the recall, you're never going to get what you want. Let's say that an anti-WalMart board gets elected and tries to stop the development. The Township will get sued and lose and you'll be stuck with the WalMart. Or if not WalMart, someone else because whoever owns that property isn't going to give up the value in that land. At the end of the day, you can fight until you're blue in the face but you're just not going to win on this issue. Sorry.

That Wal-mart has yet to begin construction should serve as proof that the recall effort will have an impact on them. Disregard the barrier and sign they placed at the site. They have had final site approval since February and they have not started building. They have not applied for any permits.

They want a supercenter and they are counting on the three to grant them that. If the recall wins, the supercenter will likely not happen. If it fail, then Wal-Mart gets whatever it wants.

"That Wal-mart has yet to begin construction should serve as proof that the recall effort will have an impact on them."

Sure, believe that if you wish. Are we placing bets on that?

"If the recall wins, the supercenter will likely not happen."

Why?

The arguments for the recall are wholly without meruit and are frankly naive. Why should the township litigate and spend a fortune on a battle that cannot be won. That would be a waste of taxpapyers money and a legitimate basis for a recall. Walmart has the legal right to build on a commercially zoned location on us-12. There is no legal basis to stop them. No legal basis! Talk about frivolous litigation. The best way to handle this situation is to make Walmart adhere to a negotiated site plan. This is what the current administration is doing.

Second, Pittsfield Township has three good democrats in office now. Does anyone actually think a republican administration would help the anti-
walmart faction? The current administration is doing a superb job. The whole recall is misguided.

Bret,

Hope you voted that way today. We'll see how it shakes out. But I agree that the Democrats who are assisting the recall effort are unwitting dupes of the Republicans who have been trying to get back on the board since they were ousted in 2000. Let's hope it's an effort they don't come to regret.

John,

















John

Alot of people are upset with the Walmart's of this world for good cause. It is sad that the current administration that has done such a great job for Pittsfield have to pay the price for that anger.

The Walmart issue has blinding effect on some. Not unlike what has happened that has allow the Bush administration to gain control of the federal government.

Bret

Bret

Looks like the recall went down in flames. With only precinct 1 left to report, it failed in all but one precinct. Will the recallers listen to the voters? Or will they continue on their destructive crusade?