Really?

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.

@Edwards, you have every right to question how your taxes are spent, as you should. And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. HOWEVER, when you bash the FD for showing up to your child's medical emergency and inflate the facts for your own agenda, you're only showing lack of reguard for those trying to help. Typical response, one ambulance, one fire truck. My "arrogance" as you state is a direct result of people like you that turn a blind eye to the facts and create their own to sensationalize their own stories. Before you start calling people arrogant, you better take an inventory of your own story telling abilities. Once again, people providing facts just upset those that would rather tell stories. Wonder what your comments would've been like had the FD not shown up knowing they respond to medicals. Stop the lies and focus on the facts, if you're able.

Joseph Edwards

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 2:28 p.m.

@Really?..You are obsessed with the number 6. To be honest, I don't remember the exact number of firefighters that arrived with the ambulance. The point of my anecdote was to raise the question of the appropriateness of the level of the response. The ambulance was called as a result of my pre-schooler's first grand mal seizure when we were young parents. Should I have called 911? It seemed to be the thing to do at the time. But I saw it again last night at the home of my friend's neighbor. The ladder truck arrived with the ambulance for a medical emergency. I don't know how many firefighters were on the truck. If outcome data (which I don't have ready access to but would be very interested in seeing) indicates that level of response I have seen is warranted, I will gladly accept those findings. According to your logic, when the doctor performs brain surgery when I go in to get a boil on my butt lanced, I should never question, but simply thank him for his service and move along. A little civics lessons...In a representative democracy, I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION HOW MY TAXES ARE UTILIZED! I only hope your arrogance does not represent the entire AAFD. Every organization has a few bad apples.

Really?

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.

@Edwards. Pretty much the response I figured from you. Complain complain complain, and provide no facts. The information in the 'database' you refer to only contains non-private information. Meaning, that anyone that has access to a scanner is able to acquire the same information. You see, you stated you don't understand why 6 firefighters (which I state you're lying) showed up to your home for what you call not that much of an emergency. Well, allow me to inform you of how that information came to the FD to warrant that. Either provide the facts, or stop bashing the FD.

Joseph Edwards

Sat, Feb 13, 2010 : 11:40 p.m.

@Really?... Tell you what. Instead, I will encourage the City Council, the City Administrator, and the Fire Department leadership to use all pertinent information available, such as the Insurance Service Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification (PPC) Service (http://www.iso.com/Products/Public-Protection-Classification-Service/Public-Protection-Classification-PPC-Service.html), along with comparative outcomes data related to EMS calls, to assess appropriate fire department staffing and equipment issues. I will encourage the city to post more detailed data regarding trends in EMS responses and traffic citations. I will also request that contracts between the city and its public employee unions be made more accessible online. But your offer does prompt another question. Does the City of Ann Arbor have information security policies and procedures in place so that the personally identifiable information of the residents is protected? Is access to personally identifiable information monitored and are public employees who misuse the information disciplined? I imagine you had a difficult time finding my information when you queried the dispatch database. Does every bully that works for the City of Ann Arbor have unlimited, unmonitored access to such information? So, tell you what else I will send my questions to my City Council representatives, Mr. Fraser and the City Attorneys Office. One sided personally opinion? You betcha! But perception is reality

Really?

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 6:06 p.m.

@Edwards... Tell you what. You tell me the date and time of your 911 call and I'll post the dispatch notes for everyone to review. Since you want to bash the FD. Provide the facts. I'm sure you wouldn't be opposed to us all knowing the FULL details rather than just a one sided personal opinion.

Joseph Edwards

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 5:28 p.m.

I stand corrected. The scale and scope of the responses to non-fire medical emergencies by the AAFD is always appropriate. There are no speed traps in Ann Arbor. Taxpayers in Ann Arbor should never question. Consider me properly re-educated, comrades.

Richard C

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 3:44 p.m.

Speed Traps? Isn't the speed limit posted?

BornNRaised

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 3:44 p.m.

Mr Edwards... so if I get this right, you called the 911 emergency system and are now complaining that an ambulance and FD showed up to your home. And you state that you think it wasn't a necessary response for why you called. Those are EMERGENCY vehicles that respond when the EMERGENCY system is activated. Before bashing the FD, I suggest you revisit what you consider an emergency. Seems that you are bashing them for trying to help YOU after calling 911. Interesting perspective you have sir. Twisted... but interesting.

Joseph Edwards

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.

Really? - You seem to being agreeing with me that there is a disconnect in the process. I do not how the 911 process works (whether HVA or AAFD responds), I only know that the response seemed disportionate (an unnecessarily expensive) to the emergency that I described to the 911 operator. As a public administrator, I only bash fellow public servants when they make veiled threats to withhold the services that they are sworn and paid to provide.

Really?

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.

@Edwards... as a firefighter I find it hard to believe that 6 firefighters were standing in your home since we only have 3 on a truck most days. 4 if we're REALLY lucky. The only way you would've had 6 is if there were 2 fire trucks DISPATCHED to your home. That only happens when HVA (notice I said HVA) deems that your 911 call is a life threat and/or they feel the HVA staff needs the assistance of the FD. Would you bash us less or more if we just started picking and choosing what calls we went on? If and when HVA tells us they are requesting 2 trucks, we go. Sorry you feel that people in this city are doing everything they can to help you when you call 911. Thanks so much for your support. Call 911 again, and you can bet that regardless of your poor attitude, we'll show up as fast as possible to help with what ever you need.

Joseph Edwards

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 11:07 p.m.

Patroitact - I would agree with you if I thought for one moment that the police were more concerned with safety than revenue generation. Based on my recent experiences, I question their priorities of late.

stephanie

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 6:27 p.m.

The letter posted on my door about snow removal was signed by an officer. The phone call telling me the snow must be removed "to the pavement and edge to edge" was an officer Rankin. Calling themselves community standards is just a nice way to say that Ann Arbor has standards when they clearly have none. I have no idea what the community standards department does except ticket people who do not shovel their snow.

Joseph Edwards

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.

May I suggest that support for the police and fire department wanes when many Ann Arbor residents feel harassed by questionable traffic citations i.e. speeding tickets at infamous speed traps throughout town (the one at Geddes and Hill really pisses me off) or failure to stop citations late at night on lightly traveled roads. I have also called 911 for medical emergencies twice in the past few years on each occasion, the two paramedics arrived with a contingent of six firefighters who all stood in my living room, looking concerned. I am not sure what the fire department policies are regarding who responds to medical emergencies or staffing criteria is for safety services for a city the size and complexity of Ann Arbor, but something seems to be amiss.

stephanie

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 7:09 a.m.

It seems to me that it is the parks that improve the quality of life in Ann Arbor. I think Ann Arbor needs an adequate police force but they obviously have too many when there are so many police that they can go around checking if people shoveled their sidewalks "edge to edge and to the pavement". We got a threatening letter from the community standards department on Monday afternoon that we were going to be ticketed if we did not clear our sidewalk. Now if you recall there was not even any snow on the ground by Monday afternoon so I have no idea what they were going to ticket us for except that they apparently have the right to make things up. When I called to complain I received a very terse response saying the snow had to be cleared "edge to edge and to the pavement". Now I have complained to the community standards unit about our neighbor leaving the apples from his tree to rot for months last summer. There were raccoons, rats, squirrels and cats back there (and left their droppings which also were not picked up). The community standards division did nothing. Prior to that I had complained about another neighbors 3 large dogs being let out at 5 a.m., barking and threatening me every time I went into my yard and sticking their heads through the fence and threatening anybody that went by. Even when they were ticketed and went to court the city threw out the ticket and then they got rid of the animal control officer who ticketed them a few weeks later. I have also complained to the community standards unit about my neighbor not painting his fence or trimming the grass and weeds around it. Like most arrogant people, he seems to think it is our responsibility to maintain his fence. My point is that the community standards unit is out there to harass people and they ought to have a field day with the recent snow. They refuse to do anything that would actually improve the quality of life or help to improve our property values. I think Ann Arbor needs an adequate police force but beyond that I would rather see the money go to the Parks, which actually do improve our quality of life. We are approaching retirement age and do plan to move in a few years. Unless there is some actual quality of life in Ann Arbor we will not stay in Ann Arbor. It is ridiculous to pay this amount in taxes and get the poor service we get.

actionjackson

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:20 p.m.

To racerx> good luck with the relatives getting your mail to you. Might want to think that one out a little better.

actionjackson

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:01 p.m.

Stayin on topic.....get rid of Fraser.

LiberalNIMBY

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 1:04 p.m.

--You might think that there would be plenty of statistics on the "critical" amount and cost of fire and police protection required in a city of our size, income, and building heights. Someone mentioned a pamphlet--can this be posted? --Frasier's place of residence should not be a factor in this discussion, any more than the home address of a CEO of a business with its office in downtown. It's his job. --I'm tired of people letting their councilpersons off the hook when they don't support something they perceive will be "unpopular." Yes, council chambers brim with apoplectic fits when anything having to do with parks (less) or new buildings (more), but I'd argue that giving into noisy neighbors on these issues has helped put us in the budget situation we're in; parks cost us money, new buildings make us money. There's a balance to be struck on these issues, but the "popular" opinion has us going in the wrong direction. Let's have some leadership.

voiceofreason

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.

Funny Thing: Budget deficits were never a problem until unions effectively organized government workers.........Correlation?

jcj

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 8:26 a.m.

irritated You have got to be kidding! We have plenty of parks in Ann Arbor that don't get used much. I am not saying we need to get rid of any, But we should not be buying more any time soon. The only people that seem to use most of the parks are the rude presumptuous dog owners. Most of them assume everyone wants to pet their dog.

kindred spirit

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

After reading 112 comments, it seems that we need different leadership. Roger Fraser needs to avoid intentionally stirring up the pot and instead needs to find responsible ways to try to resolve the funding issue. I am also dismayed that one of our leaders does not reside in Ann Arbor, if the bloggers are correct. It sounds like he needs to be replaced. The most jarring comment was the fire department employee who discussed visits by Fraser to the fire house. I do prefer the revised vote--no, we don't want ugly development. We don't want a new city hall, a new convention center, and big parking structures. I grew up in Detroit. I had a weekly paper route at the age of 12. I filed my city taxes, and the city felt I earned enough money to contribute to the city coffers. I felt money was unfairly taken away from me. One of the bright spots of many about moving to Ann Arbor was that I no longer had to pay city taxes. We do not want city taxes. People with greater know-how will find ways to avoid paying, and it will bring ill feelings towards the city that will not subside, somewhat akin to the feelings people have about putting quarters into the parking meters. Do not go down that road. I do feel it is time to talk to U of M, and put their feet to the fire if necessary. That is a lot of land without taxes. The tax on ticketed events sounds like an excellent idea. It isn't U-M officers at the corner of Stadium and Main on Saturdays directing traffic. U-M won't move if it gets taxed a bit. The university sees the situation the state is in. Time to share. And it is time for an editorial. I miss the daily paper at the door, and while these blogs can be insightful, the letters that reach the opinion page seem to have suffered in quality. I feel I do not know what is happening in the city anymore. There should be a follow up column on this issue by now, with the viewpoints of several different angles to the story. I only have the comments of 112 folks with pseudonyms, and I'll be number 113. I yearn for more information.

CaitlinPhillips

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 6:50 a.m.

In my large family, those who do not write the check, do the work. So, around the nation including Buffalo NY, there have been systems in place that peopele receiving shelter benefits, food, clothing, any basic human need, are required to volunteer and assist with the parks. All ages, income levels, families receiving assistance, etc. This includes Section 8 recipients for housing credits, WIC families, and a variety of others, as a way to feel part of community and return something to the community that has provided a basic human need.(Which most are VERY grateful for, and glad to return their time.) What about creating a program where one can sign up to return the favor by helping care for the parks. If this program works in other areas, why not here, why not now? Just food for thought. http://www.naop.com

racerx

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 2:01 a.m.

I work at the UM. I live in Pittsfield Township. If a city income tax is implemented, I'll just use a relatives address in the city as my mailing address. Problem solved. No taxes to the city. Keep my lower Pittsfield Township taxes, and still enjoy all the amenities that Ann Arbor offers!

Cendra Lynn

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:43 p.m.

Apoplexy here! Expletives, screams, and foment! Many of us have been contacting Council for five years about the cuts in safety. Not only have our pleas not been heard, but one of our council members stopped returning phone calls regarding this topic. Roger Fraser knows this very well. Ryan Stanton, you are asking the wrong questions. It should be which of the following you would like to see go first: - Roger Fraser - John Heiftje - Barnett Jones

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:53 p.m.

Are salaries of city officials and employees posted anywhere? It would be useful to know the range of compensation, for comparison purposes. The budget book has data, but not in what I would call a customer friendly format. Thank you.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.

BornNRaised... Like many here, I hope to stay with the facts. Only. Let's be very clear: 'those numbers' are not my opinion, they are facts, and they come directly from the 2010 Budget Book. My original post (comment 8) cited the source of those facts, as well as the calculations to derive an average total compensation. I merely seek to have someone (perhaps better versed in accounting) validate or refute those numbers. Total annual average compensation is a reasonable, useful metric. We do get that there is a wide range of salaries, but thank you for the reminder. Salaries may or may not be an issue; knowing the facts would help clarify that. I seek only the facts. Can anyone provide a more accurate value than $150,060.31 total annual compensation per city employee for 2010? Please cite your sources, and show the basic math, as I did above.

snapshot

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.

It seems that there are a few who consider their own opinions, city bashing, misunderstanding of state law and city funding to be the final say in the matter. Any disagreement or standing up for a differing belief is met with ridicule and personal attack. That is what I consider to be an attitude of entitlement. And your right, I think at one time unions had a social and rightious purpose in the workplace. Now I consider them to be a detriment to economic growth, innovation, and accountability. A burden on the taxpayer that I consider to be welfare. Unions stifle free enterprise and competition. the industrial revolution that spurred the mistreatment of employees is over. We've evolved into a more civilized society and the old union mentality of a brotherhood standing together for equality in the workplace is no longer the issue. The issue is that union employees make more money, have better benefits, protect unqualified and incompetent employees, and refuse to recongnize economic reality. Simply put, union members have it better than everybody else at taxpayer and consumer expense. I've been asked in a condencending manner to provide a budget shortfall solution. I will provide a simple one. Divide the shortage by manpower costs across the board, all employees take the individual financial hit as a percentage of their total compensation package. Everybody stays employed and all services remain intact. No deal, then the bottom rung employees get layed off until revenue meets expenditures. Senior personnel take up the slack and we suffer the consequences of the necessary service reductions. No taxpayer funded buyouts, no future guarantees, just fiscal accountability according to revenue. There need not be agreement but you can't argue that it is not equitable to everyone. That's my opinion and I've got a right to voice it because this is an Opinion column. How's that for simple,equitable?

BornNRaised

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:41 p.m.

Bruno, so your singular solution to this issue of city deficit is that the unions need to consolidate? Or is more specific to the Fire Department? I only ask because did you know that the local Fire Departments were aggressively working towards a 'fire authority' in the area to do just as you stated. But with the cut backs that Ypsi city is doing along with Ann Arbor, all talks were put on hold since you can't build a consolidated FD when city leaders keep pulling people from the equation. So, and I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, you see, if that's your solution, your area Fire Departments have been working on that for quite some time. You had mentioned that in your business world the current system makes no sense. I'm sure that you'd agree that in the business world, you can't initiate an action plan until you know what resources you have to assign to that plan. So you see, the unions were, in fact, working on just the solution that you suggest. It's our city leaders (and Ypsi) that put a hold on that ability to plan any further. Personally, I don't share your belief that this would be the solution. I feel that the spending that is being done by our city council is out of control. Take a look at the article on a2politico.com regarding this same topic. They (she) has some very interesting viewpoints regarding solutions.

bruno_uno

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:49 p.m.

born n raised- i see the answer a statewide consolidation of services held by the unions. its not bashing against fire fighters, but if you want me to be specific, we do not need separate fire fighters in places such as the city of ypsilanti and the township, it makes no sense in the business world where im from. in addition, i see contracting out services that have become unnecessary for unions to hold onto such as building department. simple answer for a simple problem.

bruno_uno

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:38 p.m.

This was not posted the first time, Ill try again and emphasis rehtorical- The latest RHETORICAL headline: Ann Arbor residents wonder: Do unions and city officials care more about jobs than public dollars available to support those jobs?

BornNRaised

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:24 p.m.

@BRUNO @SNAPSHOT: I've read your complaints towards the fire department and unions in general. You offer many bashes and you both share with us your apparent hatred for them both. But yet you offer no solutions. So here's a question to you both? What do you both see as the solution to the $5.2 Millon problem? The original city offer was the FD take a 25% pay cut. Is that reasonable to you? Would you like to see 10, 20, 30, how about 80 of the 90 let go? I'm sure your solution won't be as simple as "ask the unions to open thier contracts." The FD did that and gave money back, but you both still belittle them. So what is your solution? You both seem to have tunnel vision that's set on, mainly, the fire department as being the cause of all this. Would you not like to revisit the Green Belt, continued building expansions, city center, or the conference center the city is looking to purchase? So please, stop with the snappy one-liners and bashing on the FD and offer up some constructive solutions.

snapshot

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 6:41 p.m.

There was no 6% offer that was publizised unless it was tied to the fire dept. wanting to charge taxpayers additional monies for response calls and the guaranteed "no Layoff" policy or the "buyout" that was demanded by the union. I don't see any "martyism" in that type of negotiation. The 4% is until July to retract the pink slips Fraser sent out. 4% is nothing compared to the deficit that the city faces. I have no "beloved" commitments except to look out for myself as a taxpayer just as "Really" is looking out for his or her own special interest group. Did the Ann Arbor News have any guarantees, how about the 300 folks St. Joes Hospital layed off to meet their 2010 budget, how about Borders pending layoffs,the auto workers, and the tens of thousands of others who are underemployed, lost their health care, their pensions, and there's more hardship on the way but the unions seem to think there's still water in the well. I'm glad there's folks who can find humor and amusement in the hardship of others.

bruno_uno

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 6:22 p.m.

Fraser- you seem to be pretty closed aligned to the unions with the most voice around the office....why dont you try and do your job and talk consolidation and job cuts with the union instead of trying to be their best friend.

Really?

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 6:08 p.m.

Snapshot, your comments always amuse me. You're so anti-fire, anti-union, anti-antyhing you don't like, that you don't even argue a good case. The city mayor asked for 3%, our initial offer was 6%, that's double in case you didn't do the math. Wow, our 'digging our heels in'... giving double what the mayor asked for. We then asked to not close stations. Because Fraser likes to twist things, we had to word it just right so that there were no loop holes. You look at it as we're doing something under handed by trying to keep fire trucks in service. Ok, whatever. They didn't like that, so they took 4% instead. FD is the only union to come to the table and offer more than what the mayor asked for. No other union. Not even your beloved AFSCME folks that continue to get 3% raises. But yet you continue to bash FD like we're doing something to hurt this city. You amaze me. Notice we are the only department to give money back, not even council will. And yet they're still forcing layoffs. The city is using the FD and the lives of 19 young firemen as playing chips. And the whole time, you do nothing but bash the FD. I'd say you should be ashamed, but what's the point?

snapshot

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 5:53 p.m.

Why do council members like Sabra Briere behave in such an arrogant manner that they would deny the electorate a vote on a city income tax? Who's pocket is she in? An income tax would reduce property taxes by 15% for struggling residents. Instead she's advocating an amendment to Headlee which was designed to protect us from the likes of politicians like Sabre Briere. 44 families lost their homes to tax foreclosures in Ann Arbor in '09. We already have exceptionally high taxes. We need the tax equalization of a city income tax not an open hunting season on taxpayers. As for the you "thinly disguised" firefighters, who continue to bash Fraser for trying to do his job, get real. The unions have to make concessions. Start talking to your leadership and get them back to the tables for concessions that will save your jobs. Better to have something than nothing. The money isn't there anymore, regardless of your repetitive comments that it is. It's not, and taxpayers like me are getting tired of your constant whining. Government unions now have more workers than private unions according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The private sector has 7.9 million union members and the government has 8.2 million members. That's because those private sector jobs are gone. What makes you think you should be exempt from the hard times. You get paid with tax dollars and in case you haven't heard, that revenue is declining. That means job reductions or significant wage and benefit concessions. As a taxpayer, I want to see a little cooperation from the unions, not a tough, dig in your heels, hold out position. I'm taking that position as a taxpayer. A city income tax will solve your problem so why don't you use that tough guy approach to get it on the ballet and we'll all be happy.

Really?

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 5:23 p.m.

@IRRATATING: You'd bet they don't all share that opinion? Step into a fire station some time. I'm sure you're one of those that never has, but has all sorts of opinions on how we do our job. And you say it's OBVIOUS that the poll is full of public safety people? Hmmm... FD has 90 people. No offense to AnnArbor.com, but you are assuming that all 90 people logon to this site. Don't know how many cops the city has, but if the votes are up to 800, I'm sure it's not 710 cops. Folks like you crack me up. Used to get upset, but then I see your comment, "and the city is crawling with un needed expensive public safety workers" and I just have to laugh. Yep, it's the darn public safety workers that are brining this city down. You caught on to our master plan!

irritated

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 5:08 p.m.

Its pretty obvious that the poll taken was full of public safety workers votes!!!!!!

irritated

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.

To really? I would be willing to bet all the FF's in Ann Arbor do not share your opinion of Mr. Fraser, I would also be willing to bet those that dont share your hate for Mr. Fraser will not admit it. For all you Park haters I cant wait to see what your saying when the parks start to look like Ghetto jungles, and the city is crawling with un needed expensive public safety workers.

AAresident

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:56 p.m.

I attended the Council work session where the income tax was discussed some months ago. Although I don't recall the exact figures, one of the problems of the proposed tax is that it is expensive to implement. The overhead for managing the tax is I think around 3 million each year. Combine that with the reduction in business tax revenue of 7 million, add millions more for lack of compliance, also add something for the cost to business and individuals for accounting and other compliance, and you get a tax that has a lot of overhead for a relatively small amount of money collected. At that work session, Council was not all that enthusiastic about the tax. They also recognized that it would be unpopular. I think if residents realized how expensive it will be to manage, they would be less interested than they are now.

Lynn Lumbard

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:53 p.m.

Thanks for Tom Crawford's explanation, it's all clear now!

Atticus F.

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:51 p.m.

In asking for a city income tax, you are essentially asking A2's poorest to fund the extravigance of A2's wealthiest.

d_dilary

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:51 p.m.

I strongly believe in both the FD and PD they have a job to do and if we keep on cutting it will most likely get ugly. I checked online the Property and Land Search - seems like Ann Arbor owns and pays no taxes on over 200 properties. The U also owns over 200 properties with no taxes. Now not all of the land is parks or university buildings a lot of them are residential homes. Ann Arbor also has some homes in townships islands around the Geddes Ave (also some other areas maybe) area that are not paid to the city. As for the taxing UM workers, some of us do work at the U and live in Ann Arbor so if you lower our property taxes but we other taxes for working at the U then this is not a savings. Also say that property taxes are cut, with most home owners the taxes will be at the same amount as before with-in about 4 years and yet we will still have this tax for working at the U.

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:49 p.m.

I only argue because wihout support it will never make it on the ballot. City Council members are way to scared to let the people vote on things that effect them. It's hard not to argue with someone who thinks businesses are having problems hiring people in the worst unemployment ever. It's just an amzing theory that is too crazy to get past me; I should let it though.

Ryan J. Stanton

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:41 p.m.

Some of you who are paying close attention may have asked yourself why the sheet Fraser handed out Monday night showed $81.46 million in projected expenses in fiscal year 2010-11 when the corresponding budget impact sheets showed $81.35 million. Tom Crawford, the city's CFO, explained to me today that the official number the city is using is $81.35 million and $81.46 million happened to be an interim figure that shouldn't have been used. I also asked for clarification on why the city is asking departments to trim their budgets by 7.5 percent when, as a percentage of $81.35 million, that would mean $6.1 million in cuts. According to city records, the city only has a $5.2 million deficit to address. His explanation: "Regarding the 7.5% needed reduction, the 7.5% is taken off of the recurring operating expenditures which excludes a part of the organization we call non-departmental. Non-departmental primarily includes the transfer to AATA which is a millage that is collected in the Gen. Fund and then transferred to AATA. The city cannot repurpose the millage so it is excluded from the calculation. In addition to the AATA, items such as debt service, audit entries, one-time expenditures, etc. are excluded so the $ reduction is smaller and more appropriate for the operating units."

BornNRaised

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:35 p.m.

@Loka: Why do you try to argue this with people here? Let them leave then! If they're trying to say that by paying 1 half of one percent (for those outside the city) will make them quit their jobs and find work outside the city. Good luck! If you have so much access to jobs that pay that much more, go for it. Oh yeah... that's right... no one in Michigan is hiring. Hmmm... good threat folks. I'll call you on that! And for those that own homes. You might want to read the articles about this. I love how many people know zero facts but then protest until they're blue in the face. I'm not even going to get into poking holes in all the comments out there about this. You know who you are. If you haven't read the FULL document on the issue and are commenting... how much sense are you making now?

BornNRaised

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:28 p.m.

@AlphaAlpha... suggest you learn a little more about statistics before you start posting about those numbers. Until you do, they're nothing more than your own opinion. Here's another useful number for you.... 10 employees. 1 makes 30k per year, the other 9 make 125k per year. The average employee now makes $115,500 per year. You still think your 'average' theory is valid? You think it's fair to compare the person who picks up your trash with the abundance of supervisors in city hall? Mean, median, range, and mode. Takes a lot more information than what you're looking at to come up with a valid point. At any rate, the issue isn't salaries. The issue is the pet projects the city is dumping MILLONS into. It pisses me off to hear folks like you so ready to take away someone's bread and butter when the council throws money around like it grows on trees. Especially when they won't even take a pay cut. Ok, the the check that SOME of them are writing back to the city. Yeah, that's a tax deduction.

TF

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:28 p.m.

A renter may do this. They'll receive no tax reduction like a homeowner, but would be looking for a way out of the income tax.

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:22 p.m.

Well i don't see everyone getting out of making their legal residence to a loopholed out of town address. Why would they? If they own a home they'll be paying les in oncome tax than they just did in property tax. Why would they do this?

TF

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:17 p.m.

@jcj. The (illegal, but practiced elsewhere) loophole that I'm pointing out would be for Ann Arbor residents who work outside of the city. They normally would be subject to the tax, but would evade it by changing their address (if non-homeowner, etc). @lokal. I'm not necessarily saying the income tax physically drove people out of the city, but it does cause remaining citizens to find ways to not be residents on paper.

jcj

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:06 p.m.

TF I believe the point in an income tax is that you collect from residents and non-residents.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:05 p.m.

Foobar417, thank you for responding. I may not have adequately explained the input numbers, causing you to calculate the approximate average compensation incorrectly. $114,946,199 is the total pay and benefits requested for 2010, and would be divided by the 766 employees, for an average total compensation of $150,060.31 per worker for 2010. Thank you, Really?. Yes, this is an average, and a useful number as well, and a good place to begin a thorough evaluation of city employee compensation. Studying the 2010 Budget Book, it is not at all clear who earns what. Is there a better source to learn the various compensation amounts? I want to know whether I'm missing any significant numbers in the calculation. So, can anyone provide a more accurate number than $150,060.31 average 2010 total compensation per city employee?

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:04 p.m.

no.... People do everything they can not to live in Detroit becasue it's Detroit and it's pretty bad in there. White flight to the burbs had nothing to do with an income tax.

CynicA2

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4 p.m.

@Loka - never underestimate the ability of politicians to raise taxes, especially when desperate for more money. The point is, why give them another way to pick your pocket in the first place, given their clearly misplaced priorities and willingness to to spend extravagantly for totally useless things. Just because some law currently limits them in some way now, doesn't mean they can't change it when it suits them in the future.

TF

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:56 p.m.

The income tax will just ensure that all UofM students and as many other people that can get away with it will change their legal address (or keep their parent's) to something outside of Ann Arbor. Just like in Detroit. People do whatever they can to avoid the insurance rates and income taxes of the city.

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.

"Don't believe for a second that property taxes will be lowered to compensate." I do belivee this and it is a legal fact.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.

The problem with the income tax, for residents, is simply money and inconvenience. Don't believe for a second that property taxes will be lowered to compensate. But it will hurt them in other ways. It will lower the value of their homes. That's because a city income tax is an absolute deal-breaker for companies considering a move to the city. Which in turn means less people looking for new homes, which means existing homes lower in value. Ann Arbor needs to learn to live within its budget. If the unions won't negotiate the same pay and benefit cuts everyone in the private sector has to live with, then that means more layoffs.

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.

@ CynicA2 Well that would be a problem for sure. Do you know off hand if city officials could ACTUALLY do that? I understand we need a vite to inact a tax...would we also need one to raise the rate? it sounds like you're saying they could just do it. Do you know? thanks.

CynicA2

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:32 p.m.

The real problem with the income tax is that it will never stop at 1%... some other group of free-spending politicians will want to raise it ever higher to cover their future financial failures. Any group of politicos who can't prioritize public safety and basic infrastructure over fluff like the euro- folly fountain, the (f)Art Tax, and so-called "greenbelts" - has no business BEING in city hall, let alone building a new one. Run them out of town on a splintery rail, come next election.

nowayjose

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.

Sorry should say below, not belong.

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.

Exactly my point...who is really going to move out of Ann Arbor because of an income Tax? People always say this will hurt the students (who actually I believe will pay only 1/2%? could be wrong) being hurt but come on, when I was a college student I had a job and made around 4K a year...what's a little more sprinkled on top of the loan you'll be paying off the rest of your life? If enough people can't afford to live in apt. in ann arbor, then the landlords will be forced by the market to lower their rents...making everyone happy.

nowayjose

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.

The national average of police officers per 1000 people is two, recommended by the the FBI. Ann Arbor is a city of aprox. 116,000 people not including UofM students. AAPD is staffed by 123 sworn officers, so that is almost a full person belong the recommended amount of officers by the FBI.

jcj

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:01 p.m.

Johnny Taxpayer "Watch the flight from the city when you impose a city income tax" Where they gonna go to get a job? Hamtramck? Dexter? Chelsea? Who they gonna sell their houses to so they can move to where their are no jobs? Let them move out then the unemployment rate will go down here as we fill their spots with Ann Arbor residents! Think About it!!!

David Cahill

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:52 p.m.

Republicans on Council probably would be people who are anti-choice, anti-labor, and bad on health insurance. In fact, bad clear through. Why do you think they have lost Council races here nearly all the time since George Bush took office?

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.

@ johnny Taxpayer if ytou missed it...this thread is filling up fast. "Watch the flight from the city when you impose a city income tax" Please explain how 1% (If you DON'T own a home)of your paycheck is going to make you flee the town. If you own a home you'll probably save money.

iceman

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.

Hey Roger! I think you struck a nerve!

T. Michelle Gapins

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.

This discussion warrants an editorial. However, today just be sure the roads and sidewalks are kept plowed, please and thank you.

Really?

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:34 p.m.

Never hid the fact that I'm a firefighter with Ann Arbor. Proud of it. City leaders? Embarrassed of them. Completely! Fraser has these 'coffee hours' at the fire station where he tries to 'befriend' us. There he stands in the middle of 20 firemen that want to throw him down 3 flights of stairs. Not because of his threats of layoffs, but because of his arrogance. We ask him direct spending questions, and when he doesn't want to answer or knows he's getting backed into a corner that HE CREATED, his response... "Next question". He tells us that unless this income tax happens, he can't promise the department won't be cut. So, as a firefighter who Fraser has told this income tax idea could save jobs, I'm telling you to ask yourself if the city needs more money coming in, or does it need responsible leadership that can spend it wisely? Greenbelts, arts from artists in other countries, lease cars, pet projects... People, stand up and speak at a council meeting. The problem is with the people writing the checks. And as far as UofM being the 'problem'. They suck up a lot of land, I give you that. I read in a post a while back, and although I don't have a way to prove it it does make sense... the city owns more non-taxable land than the U. Folks, anyone can look like a great leader when things are good and there's plenty of money floating around. The true test of a leader is when things are hard and we look at the choices they are making. You happy with them so far? Vote.

cinnabar7071

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:30 p.m.

CaitlinPhillips, your daughters parks? How did she buy parks at 9? Tell your daughters when she starts paying taxes, the parks will be hers, along with the decisions that go along with the taxes.

Johnny Taxpayer

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:28 p.m.

Infrastructure: more important than parks and art projects. wake up people

bunnyabbot

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.

the problem with creating more taxes and raising taxes (and creating "fund buckets") is you just give them more money to mismanage. IF they can't manage what they have why throw more money into that black hole? I'd rather keep my money and manage it (or mismanage it) myself. I don't want someone else to have free willy nilly with anymore of my money than they already do and do so crapily.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:19 p.m.

Sure, Bush made a lot of mistakes and caused enormous harm. But Granholm has hurt Michigan far more deeply. We were in a one-state recession before the national recession hit, and we will remain in one long after that ends. Talking about increasing millages or implementing an income tax will cause even more harm. You can't tax your way out of a recession. It doesn't increase your revenue the way you think it will. All it will do is drive business over the city line. As for whining about people caring more about parks than firefighters? Be real. People care about firefighters when there's a fire. They care very much. Cutting back the number of firefighters isn't tangible to us, because we don't know how that will affect us. Selling off parkland is very much tangible, and could cause significant harm to people who live right next to the park in question. It's also kind of dumb, as we're spending millions to create this silly green belt, which only benefits the former land owners and their immediate neighbors. But parks within the city are so much more valuable.

kenUM

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.

Mr. Fraser..............I am not a Police Officer or a Fire Fighter or a City employee, HOWEVER! I GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT WE NEED, AND I VOTE IN FAVOR OF SAVING POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS OVER HAVING PARKS AND RECREATION. WITHOUT THE TWO WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENJOY OUR PARKS. "SOMEWHAT CONCERNED" there is a huge difference between traffic control and crime control. Take a look at the situation that occurred in Toledo Ohio last Spring and over the Summer. The City of Toledo laid off 75 Police Officers after threatening to lay off 150; several weeks PRIOR TO AND DURING the layoffs crimes such as Burglary and Murder skyrocketed. Gang members started to wear t-shirts announcing "WHEN THE 150 GO WE RUN THE SHOW" blatantly all over town. Sure we have a great Parks System, but how safe will these treasures remain if we continue to have an attitude that the Police do not make a difference. Mr. Fraser made the comment in regards to different communities in and around the county being able to take care of Fire Services adequately, but do those communities have the number of high rise buildings and area to cover that our Fire Department has? Is Mr. Fraser going to respond with the AAFD to a high rise building fire or house fire bringing with him the Fire Truck that was placed out of service, and run inside with a hose after the 19 Fire Fighters are laid off. It is the concept of SAFETY and PARKS that make A2 so attractive to live in, I suggest that this will quickly change if we place the Parks as being more important than Public Safety and stand by while our safety forces are whittled down. The city income tax that many tout as being the savior of the City, are we GUARANTEED that this will eliminate the need for the layoffs, keep our Parks and Recreation afloat, and heal all the ills of the City, or is this just another way for the City administration to spend more money? Those that want (U-M)blood, by taxing employees of U-M and all of the "Outsiders" will this quell the financial woes of A2? Every time I read these blogs in one way or another someone seems to find that U-M is to blame for any type of metropolitan disaster, and demands that U-M cough up money. Take a good look at the financial support U-M both directly and indirectly gives to the City and the County. I never hear anyone demanding that Ann Arbor Public Schools pay money, yet look at all the property the School district owns. I would suggest that the City approach U-M and ask for physical assistance in running the City, after all U-M has their own Police Department, Grounds Department, Garbage Collecting Department, Bus System and Building Services Department. U-M could easily help out the City with these and many other Services. Sorry about the rant!!

DagnyJ

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:16 p.m.

David Cahill, that is probably the most parochial, narrowminded and downright silly thing posted here yet.

Johnny Taxpayer

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:15 p.m.

Lay off your fire and police, then, find some Euro clown to paint a million dollar mural. That will add to the city's ambiance.

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.

"Watch the flight from the city when you impose a city income tax" Please explain how 1% (If you DON'T own a home)of your paycheck is going to make you flee the town. If you own a home you'll probably save money.

townie

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:08 p.m.

Even though revenue has increased at a rate higher than the rate of inflation for the last several years, and even though Fraser has "restructured" and "streamlined" the City, and even though he has layed off a couple hundred people, he has still managed to spend more than the City is taking in, by a huge margin. Then he stands up there and insults the citizens of this City? Or he tries to scare us into an income tax instead of doing his job and cutting waste (like IT and legal)? Want to cut some fat out of the budget? Fire Fraser.

Johnny Taxpayer

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.

Watch the flight from the city when you impose a city income tax. Add that to the idiocy of paying for art projects with the tax dollars you have left, and watch the town become ypsi-tucky part 2.........

bunnyabbot

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.

it's silly that this city continues to buy unnecessary things during a recession, silly to continue to poor money into things that need such a large amount of upkeep. Blaiming Bush? give me a break. CC the Mayor and Fraser are responsible for A2, not Bush I am not a firefighter, nor do I see a lot of "veiled" ones posting. sell the golf course. NO CITY INCOME TAX (and leave parking rates ALONE)

Lokalisierung

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:01 p.m.

Income Tax now.

David Cahill

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 1:41 p.m.

Going to non-partisan elections would only mean that local Republicans could hide their political identities from the public. As it is now, Republicans are perfectly free to run in local City elections. They just don't win. Works for me. 8-)

Moose

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 1:36 p.m.

When a topic gets to around 50 posts, the wing nuts and whack jobs come out of the woodwork.

detroit29

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 1:28 p.m.

what are you talking about

Mike

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 12:59 p.m.

Fire the police! They do nothing but lay about in speed traps and collect taxes at the point of a gun. It is better for there to be fewer police involved in actual police work than to have many engaged in illegal activity.

TruthInNews

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.

Fraser is blaming Bush, and Reagan, for this mess? Even if true, federal funds only make up a portion of the city's budget, and its not like the city has not had ample time to prepare (Reagan was President in the 1980s). This is like blaming other states for our problems (they voted for Bush). Which is wholly missing the point. We are stuck with those states, we need to PLAN accordingly. Something that obviously DID NOT happen. Fraser's ideas are obviously bankrupt. TRUTH IN NEWS

A2K

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.

It's not that I care about parks more than police/fire services, it's that I don't like what would go where the parks are now. E.G., Dicken Woods. This was going to be a "high-rise, section-8, low-income, high-density housing project". Until the neighborhood bestirred itself to stop the project. This sort of development would have forever changed the makeup, feel, and VALUE of the homes in Vernon Downs neighborhood. I didn't pay top-dollar for a modest ranch home and pay $6000+ a year in property taxes to have the city "decide" I need section-8 in my backyard.

Sarcastic1

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.

Have the fire fighters and police officers cut the grass in the parks while not on fire calls. They can also drive the garbage trucks around and pick up the trash when they have time.

st.julian

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.

The poll is specious as so many of annarbor.com polls seem to be. It's a series of false choices. I hadn't noticed that Rumsfeld was holding seminars on fear mongering in A2, but maybe the local news coverage was lacking

brad

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:47 a.m.

Instead of a vague debate about things we dont really understand, like median vs mean salaries, fire standards, and job performances, why not use the readers time constructively? My market-based solution to the park issue: City-Wide Park Days should be organized by civic leaders. Let local residents and users of each park set up their own thing, like a garage/bake sale, a barbeque, a concert, a botany tour, a disc golf tournament. While people visit, pressure them into volunteering time/money to help maintain that park. All of the proceeds (including the expected savings from volunteer maintenance) will go to that specific park. This is the key because my idea has two inter-connected pieces. I also suggest the city drastically reduce its GF support for park maintenance for the medium-term. Parks that have local support, i.e. people care about them and actually use them, will be maintained; the others will have to decay for a few years. Its tough luck for the people who live next to unpopular parks, but now is the time for tough luck decisions.

LBH

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:46 a.m.

We have some real gems when it comes to parks in Ann Arbor, but let's face it, they are not all "special". BornNRaised is absolutely right - they cost us money and they cost it in two ways. They cost money to maintain and they have taken land off of the tax roles. People spend a great deal of time griping about the University, but the 'U' is not the only thing that takes land off of our tax roles. City Parks, Schools, and churches all take land off of our tax roles, and two of them cost money to maintain so we get dinged twice. Taking a hard look and letting some of them go will reduce the cost of maintenance and will put them back on the earning side of the equation. This is only a one time fix in terms of the $$ received for the land. Once it has been sold, the land will be back on the tax roles and will bring in money rather than costing money.

Moose

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.

A city income tax may get some dollars from a few of those highly paid UM folks that we love to hate, but the real problem is that it also makes the folks who cut grass, load trucks, make and serve food on campus and many other lower wage jobs. It also hurts low wage people in similar jobs in the city who do not work for the UM and can't afford to live in the city. I'm no anti tax conservative, but a city income tax is a local job killer. If the object is to capture some of those UM dollars we lust after, time would be better spent by the city administration and council to find legal ways to nominally tax tuition and sporting event tickets. Loads of folks from outside the city and not affiliated with the UM come to town for ticketed events. Take the UM to court, hold their feet to the fire, get elected officials and administrators in the state who host institutions of higher learning in their communities to make their case in Lansing, get those communities to work together and change the state laws, then maybe we'll see the UM and other institutions take a different position on how they work with their host cities. The one thing that a city income tax will do, is get a few dollars from Roger Fraser, who does not live in the city yet continues to identify himself with the rest of us who do. I really wish he would stop inferring that he is a resident of the city.

katie

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.

Developers seem to be behind the whole thing. Why are we building a parking structure and a convention center? Why are we building a new city hall? I guess the greedy developers won't be satisfied until we sell every city park and develop it. How is a park so much more expensive than an ugly new conference center? Just let the weeds grow more, don't shovel in winter. The park will be there for generations to come. When times are better, we will still have the park. My vote is as follows: Firefighters - yes Police - yes Parks - yes New buildings - NO! New parking garage - NO! Fix your poll to include these options and see what you get!

jcj

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:48 a.m.

I am all for a city income tax tied to a reduction in property taxes. Generally speaking a city income tax is not appealing from the outside. However how many workers that live outside the city will go elsewhere to find work? Certainly not the U OF M big wigs! Most of them don't live in the city. I would love to be able to tap into their pot of gold.

BornNRaised

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.

@jcj. Fraser is dead on. Go to a concil meeting. The day the talked about reducing the art % by 0.5%, people lined up to protest it. When they talked about laying off FD and closing stations. No one spoke. The citizens send a clear message to city council when that happens. I think it's disappointing to see that from the residents, but Fraser is correct. Believe me, it kills me to give that man ANY credit. But he's right.

jcj

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.

Mr. Fraser what blogs have you been reading?? There certainly is a passion for parks in this city. But I do not believe for a minute that the citizens care more about parks than public safety. Look at the vote on this site. Now had you said they care more about their animals I might agree!

BornNRaised

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.

So I have a question to all those that stood up on their soap boxes a couple of meetings ago and cried that the art fund doesn't cost the city any money and that money can't be used to save the firefighters.... Parks have their own milage... so that shouldn't 'cost' the city any money either right? Oh, guess what... you need to MAINTAIN that crap once it's there. Guess where that money comes from folks? Feel that soap box giving way under your feet yet? You guessed it... the general fund. The same fund that keeps police and firemen on the streets. So you're attitude of "it doesn't cost the city anything" is idiotic. Notice those same people don't get up and protest the removal of police and firefighters. Wonder how they'll feel when their streets aren't plowed today. Gee... can't drive anywhere to look at your art or parks. Now what? Great planning folks.

Really?

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.

@Calmic: A booklet was prepared for the board of regents at UofM as well as city council. Shows how Ann Arbor compares to all the other big 10 cities. Ann Arbor is at the bottom for fire protection services per residents and area. Take a look at Lansing (where the former fire chief was from). They have a MUCH larger department and create a revenue sream for their city by transporting their medical patients instead of a private company taking revenue from the city. Notice the Chief also quit after seeing that this city doesn't want to move forward, but rather use their FD as a barganing chip with the residents to get what they want (city income tax).

ChrisW

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:24 a.m.

Step 1. Stop building a dumb ridiculously expensive parking structure when people prefer cheap easy access lots instead. Step 2. Don't even think of building a convention center or hotel with city money. Step 3. Stop requiring all developers to jump through hoops for years on end just to build an apartment building or storefront. Stop requiring every project to include low-income housing. More development means more tax dollars. Step 4. The pension system has to change. Step 5. Supplement the fire department with volunteers. There are many able-bodied adults and students that would be willing to help out when needed. Step 6. A 1/2% income tax should be considered so university employees pay their share of city services, but only if property taxes come down in the process.

Moose

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:11 a.m.

When Roger talks about "We" does he actually refer to himself as someone who lives in the city and pays taxes here? Or does he refer to "We" as himself being part of the disconnected bureaucracy that lives in City Hall?

Janelle Baranowski

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:07 a.m.

Top Cat- I couldn't agree more. One way to fix the one-party system that has emerged is to make elections non-partisan.

Dalouie

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

This all goes to show, Ann Arbor is not special any more. When Pfizer left and the UM took over they went in the same boat with the other cities. And in that boat, A2 is still doing a lot better. These same problems are being talked about across the state and in most places they are much worse. But no one should think A2 city government is over staffed, they have 25% fewer employees than they used to. But they are well paid and although the council does not have as much power over that as we would like (see Act 312) the employees have been offered a way out. Give up some benefits and wages. Problem is, their older union "brothers" won't make any concessions that might affect their retirement in order to save the younger employees. With over 40% of the real estate off the tax roles, the income tax, with the built in property tax relief, may be the only way out. (Now the township residents will complain.)

calmic

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:50 a.m.

Let's try to look at this objectively. I would like to see a comparison with other similar size cities as to the ratio of police and firefighters to the population (keep in mind that UM has its own police force). That could help us gauge whether our public safety is adequate, bloated, or inadequate. Ryan, maybe you could get this info form your contacts at city hall?

Awakened

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.

I too have commented on previous blogs. I am NOT a firefighter. It amazes me that the administrative positions are never cut. The additional layoffs to police and fire are all line staff. No SUPERVISORS????? Less line staff means less supervisors in business. But not here. And NEVER any cuts to administrative staff. If police and fire have to do more for less (and they do) then staff can as well. Sterling Heights and other Michigan communities have organized volunteers to maintain neighborhood parks. Surely A2 could do the same to save some of the General Fund money going to Parks.

Lynn Lumbard

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:38 a.m.

I agree with Top Cat. The single party system seems to have lost touch with the people of Ann Arbor. Although I've never voted for a Republican, it might help to have someone other our current mayor and council making these upcoming important decisions.

C6

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:37 a.m.

Eliminate firefighters - No, not unless that can be done while maintaining an ability to respond in 5 minutes or less to multiple simultaneous events. Eliminate Police - No, in fact lets hire some more and get back to enforcing traffic laws like speed limits. I'd like those who are too impatient (or is that self-important?) to stop at stop signs and traffic signal red lights to be ticketed. Perhaps all those civil infractions they would write could not only pay the new officer costs, but also add to the city's coffers. Sell city parks - No. What would be fair, would be to give them back to those developers who were coerced into "donating" them to the city in the first place, to have their projects approved. And finally, no, I'm not a firefighter, a cop, or a developer. Nor am I friends with or related to any of those either. I'm just a city taxpayer who would rather be out driving my 400 horsepower economy car.

A2rez

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:19 a.m.

I can't believe these are the only 3 choices - parks, police, firefighters. Cut city administration to the bare bones - buildings, building maintenance, - yes, sell City Hall first. They keep talking about cuts to public safety, which is only 55% of the budget. OK, make the cuts entirely from the other 45% of the budget, because they certainly have not made the case that they cannot find cuts to make there. This is not that big of a city, yet when I call the city with a question, it takes about 7 phone calls to find the right person, because everyone I talk to seems to have a real specialized, tiny role - probably because they have too many people. I've lived in similar sized towns with comparable public safety, better city services, more parks, AND they cleared the roads when the snow hit. I don't understand where all the money is going. Wait, I understand where. I don't understand why.

Top Cat

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:19 a.m.

If Ann Arbor had two active political parties rather than one party monopolizing government, do you think elected officials and those that they appoint would be more responsive to the voters?

belboz

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:11 a.m.

foobar - what equation was that? Why are they only talking about discretionary spending? Last article I saw, the city has revenue of $350 million? Lets make sure the pain is shared across all funds and expenses. If someone says that spending is mandated, I'd respond by saying the city needs to then go bankrupt so the "mandated" spending can be renegotiated - i.e. pension payouts, retiree health benefits, etc... What is the financial risk of going bankrupt? Seems minimal to me, other than psychological misgivings. That is the exact path private industry has walked down. No reason to be different - government employees are not entitled. They are people who serve the public at the discretion of the public. The public is not served at the discretion of the government employee - although it sure seems to be the mentality frequently.

Kvetchmeister

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.

The hubris, small mindedness, and hypocrisy of Fraser are stunning, even for him. Uh, it was YOUR IDEA to make those public safety cuts in the first place. Now you try to make us feel bad because we didn't oppose you enough? How disingenuous! How inappropriate! Especially for someone who, as others have pointed out, pays no A2 taxes. This guy needs to go. It will never happen, but if council had any integrity they would schedule a vote of their confidence in Fraser and proceed from there.

MG

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.

Personally I think Ann Arbor has to start dealing with its expenses which have gotten out of control during the glory years. This includes pensions, wasteful administration, and optional things which can take a back seat to having good basic City services. Laying off firefighters/police and selling parks is their way of presenting FUD, but this only really angers the taxpayers because they understand now that Ann Arbor taxes are already too high for the services its provides. Everything should be on the table including selling parks, but first look at the pensions and salaries, and overall administration of the City first. Many many years ago it used to be the case that pensions existed because people worked for the City for lower wages. Nowadays salaries are more in line with Industry but the pensions and benefits never adapted. The answer isn't increasing the taxes, but in keeping this level while lowering these type of expenses. After those have been realigned there may not be a need to sell parks, perhaps just look at the expenses of maintaining the ones we have. Ultimately, the City Council and City Administrator control the spending. Voters can change existing millages by repealing them at voting time. Increasing fees, creating an income tax, adjusting the Headlee amendment, etc, is not the answer and only serves to anger the taxpayers of Ann Arbor.

spm

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.

His statement is a strawman. People who like parks are just more vocal than those that want something this city will always need - police and firefighters. People can live without parks, but we can't live without law and order. If parks are costing the city then just stop maintaining them until this financial crisis is over. I've already brought my chainsaw into my favorite park and cut through large trees that blocked our path and I've seen others do the same thing. If we love our parks enough we'll voluntarily keep them up. Find another strawman to knock around, Mr. Fraser.

a2bucks

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:55 a.m.

Neither parks nor safety is the real problem. The real problem is the same problem that all state and local governments are dealing with across the country--benefits that have been bestowed too generously upon public (esp. public union) employees. I'm all for people making as much money as they are worth. The problem is that many (not all) public employees get paid more than they would in an equivalent private job. It's much more difficult to get rid of them when needed. There are probably a number of city hall employees we could get rid of without sacrificing any of the services we need. Those of you who think the police just sit around wasting their time do not understand how important their role is in your daily life. Take away the police and watch the crime rate soar. Firefighters aren't very important until it's your house burning down or your loved one who needs to be saved. Yes parks are important in the beauty and livability of the city, and no I don't want to see them sold if possible. But we need to have priorities. Let's get rid of the excess administrative costs before cutting any services or parks. Then get rid of parks before any police or firefighters.

aanonliberal

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.

somewhat concerned, I bet you stopped at the intersection where the lightwas out? Some people who don't see the cops "sitting" there would probably run right through that intersection. And talking on their cell phone to find out the status of the power....find out how their family was doing at their home with same power out, because they can't run home because they have to be at those intersections.....don't see one thing and make a quantum leap in logic that it is bad and applied on every day. Same question to you as "bark" are YOU going to go into any of those situations? Let me answer that for you.....NOT A CHANCE! Same for a fire...have you run into any burning buildings lately........carried a dying person down 2 flights of stairs while helping do CPR........been in a car calming an injured driver as the roof or door is being cutoff? Let me answer for you again. NOT A CHANCE. Ask yourself if you were in any of those situations where that help was needed, for you or your loved ones, and you waited for a response would the fact you could think about green cut grass give you comfort?

Really?

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.

@AlphaAlpha, the problem with your math is that you're taking a general average. Keep in mind this city is heavy with administrators and managers. This is not an area that you can use a general average. Did you know this city has MANY 'supervisors' with NO EMPLOYEES under them? Just an FYI. And yes, it is true this city cares more about parks than public safety. Why is that? Because generally, most folks don't have a reason to call the 911 system. Those are the people that say, "I've never needed a fire truck or policeman to come to my house, but I see a park everyday on my drive to work." Can't argue that fact, and to be honest, I hope no one in this city every needs a fire truck or cop at their home. Something very bad just happened to you when that happens. BUT... the day you do pick up a phone and dial 911, think to yourself what you expect. Especially in this city. That park isn't going to bring you much safety or comfort. This isn't about 'scare tactics' as some have suggested. It's about common sense. Here's a thought (no to spark a political debate either!). With the exception of Bush's "war on terror", how many wars does the U.S. actually fight? Does that mean we cut our military, or be thankful that we have so many ready to deploy at a moment notice? Do you think the military just sits around because there isn't a WWI or II going on at any particular time? Just food for thought...

foobar417

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:39 a.m.

If your math is based on correct figures (which I didn't check), then average compensation is $72480.37 ($114,946,199 / $55,519,965) * $150,060.31 = $72480.37

KJMClark

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:29 a.m.

"other than a few thinly disguised firefighters on the blogs" - I recall commenting on that article, and I recall writing that the administrative staff should receive a pay cut. I can assure everyone that I'm not a firefighter. "But as soon as we started talking about the opportunity or the idea of selling parks" - I would rather you reduce the services in the parks, like mowing my park twice as often as needed, before reducing police/fire staff. I'd even be OK with the city not mowing my neighborhood park. My neighbors and I could take care of that if we had to. However, I'd rather you sold city hall than selling park land. You can always lease office space. You could even sell city hall and lease back the space. However, developers have a bad habit of permanently developing open space when they get the chance. That's why they're called "developers". If you sell a park, you have to assume it's gone forever.

Somewhat Concerned

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:23 a.m.

Some of us don't believe that more spending on police or firefighters results in more safety. I used to believe that it would, but I no longer believe it. Here's a recent experience. When the fire on the Westside knocked out power, traffic was snarled and busy intersections with traffic lights that didn't work were dangerous to pass through. Would more police officers have made the intersections less dangerous? No, not at all. At several of those intersections, we already had police officers. At one intersection, we had two cars-full, right next to each other. They were sitting in their cars, keeping warm, talking on cell phones. They were not making the intersections safe for us. They were making life on a cold night easier for themselves. I am not a tea party person who thinks government spending is bad. I am in favor of most of the spending that Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County do because that spending helps make our town a nice place to live. More money for officers to sit in their cars while we fend for ourselves is high on my list of expenditures Ann Arbor should not make.

CaitlinPhillips

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.

My Daughter, 9 year old Ileanna Phillips asks you not to sell her daughters parks. She has read your article and says, well... If there are no parks, there will be more crime. More heat, more fires... Then she asked if my grandmother sold my parks.... Noooooo.... That is why the parks are still here.....The money from the land sale would only fix the problem for a little while. (Next Q-) What happens when they run out of money again? Doesn't the town always run out of money? When will the city get the parks back? I figure I will let all of you provide the answers to this future Ann Arbor taxpayers questions... After all, it is her life, and her daughters life that we are all planning for here.... So, let's try to find another way, folks....

Bob Heinold

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 8:01 a.m.

RE: Headline: Is this why Fraser doesn't live in Ann Arbor?

Fred&Barney

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.

Roger must be tired of bossing city council around, now he feels the need to tell the public how they feel about issues based on what he reads in blogs, keep it up big boy,,keep it up.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:31 a.m.

Math check please... The 2010 Budget Book, page 117 lines 1 and 2, shows: requested pay at $55,519,965 requested benefits at $59,426,234; these total $114,946,199; when that amount is shared by 766 (per page 72) city employees, it provides $150,060.31 for each employee for 2010. Is $150,060.31 per year average total compensation reasonably accurate? If so, is it a reasonable amount?

aanonliberal

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:28 a.m.

bark, seriously???? You need to leave your fantasy world, why do people not do stupid stuff? Some are afraid of getting caught not the thought of hugging a tree that stops them. Try doing a ride a long with a police officer. Go to the domestic where one party is bleeding and the perpetrator is cursing you while spitting on you......go to large street fights in front of some of the liquor establishments where people are trying to kill other people with bottles, bricks and whatever else they can get their hands on, then YOU wade in there and tell them to go to the park and settle down. Check any survey that determines quality of life (and a best place to live) and the best places all have more than adequate safety services. Fraser is right about one thing, people in this community care more about a damaged tree than the police and fire PEOPLE and the service they provide. Some are right that he is setting up an income tax, GREAT IDEA, tap into U of M's payroll. The citizens who live here get a property tax REDUCTION so those coming in here daily to drink from the never ending financial fountain of the U of M should help pay.

DagnyJ

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:12 a.m.

No income tax. Sell Huron Hills. Stop mowing all the parks. Sabra Briere, calling Sabra Briere...it's time to retire.

bark

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 7:10 a.m.

Ya know, I think Roger is missing a big point. Having lots of parks in a city HELPS with public safety. It makes the citizens a much nicer bunch of people to deal with. Green spaces help sooth the strain of daily life, making Mr. Crazy less likely to explode. I also doubt that the amount of police officers in the town are what keeps this place safe. I think its probably a citizenry that doesn't want to do bad. Fire, thats a different story!

Cash

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 6:39 a.m.

And the Oscar goes to: Roger Fraser! He wins for his role acting as a city administrator using the media to stir up fear and anxiety for the A2 taxpayers with a goal of pushing an income tax. I'm assuming he knows taxpayers worry about losing police, fire and community standards folks. But there's not enough public horror being displayed here for him, so he tries to stir that up for posters here. Be honest, Roger. Say "I need more money. Give me an income tax." Quit trying to play the taxpayer like a fine-tuned instrument. We can see right through you.

racerx

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 6:18 a.m.

What I don't understand is the article by council member Christopher Taylor, who explains why some funds can't be used for General Fund expenditures. So, if two park millages can only be used for parkland acuquistion and the other for park improvements, but still require a $4.2M annually subsidy from the General fund then how can these millages not be used to support them? Espcially if there's a $5.2M General fund deficit? Simple math maybe, but that leaves $1M. End the $800K German Art, balance budget!?! Even if Fraser "perceives" that the community cares more about parks than police or fire department employee's, gee, I hope he's not making his decision's on what local bloggers are typing! But, if this is how he "leads", then bring out the tea leaves, crystal ball, palm readers, Ouji board....