Passionate about parks: Proposal on tonight's Ann Arbor City Council agenda brings out mix of opinions
A discussion on the future of Ann Arbor's parks and what protections should be provided to them is expected to take place at tonight's City Council meeting.
In emails exchanged between council members and residents, the debate already is raging over a city charter amendment that would require special voter approval of any future attempts to repurpose city parks for non-park or non-recreational uses — such as a train station in Fuller Park, a proposal that's been under consideration for a few years now.
Here's a sampling of some of the opinions out there and some insight from Mayor John Hieftje on what might happen tonight.
The Huron Hills Golf Course is one of the city park properties that some residents fear is vulnerable to repurposing.
File photo
I urge you NOT to support this resolution. It would take important decision-making authority away from City Council and would undermine long-range planning efforts in the City. Members of Council are elected not only to represent their ward constituents (who rarely are all of one mind!), but also to consider what is in the public interest for the whole city. In my opinion, that means making educated and informed decisions on my behalf, not hiding behind the cover of, “Oh, we can’t decide that, it takes a vote of the people!”
Too often, a “vote of the people” is decided by reactive emotion, incomplete information, or negativity and innuendo (think New Bridge to Canada campaign). Considering what is in the public interest also means making decisions at the Council table to support important policies in approved Master Plans, such as the Transportation Plan, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, the Capital Improvements Plan, and so on.
Throwing up barriers to a sound and openly-debated decision-making process not only undermines your authority and the thoughtfully-debated master plans, it demoralizes city staff and adds to the cost of government by dragging out decisions and sometimes requiring expensive elections. And, practically speaking, it can lead to missed opportunities because waiting for a ballot vote doesn’t allow Council to be nimble.
Jane Lumm, 2nd Ward council member
No one questions that council ultimately has decision-making authority, and, for me, obtaining citizen feedback whenever possible, informs my view, and helps me and other elected officials operate in a manner that, hopefully, is representative of the citizens' views.
The Ann Arbor community values parkland as, in the thoughtful words of one constituent who put it so very well, a "sacred trust." Recognizing that, I think the "bar" is even higher when it comes to respecting and honoring the value placed by our community on our magnificent city parks and recreation resource, and this proposal reflects that "sacred trust" view and value.
Rita Mitchell, Ann Arbor resident
People in Ann Arbor value parks, and want to keep them for the recreational and environmental benefits that benefit all of us. The people of Ann Arbor are not eager to transfer our land to other entities or to use the land for non-park purposes.
If a good case can be made for such a transfer or repurposing, then that case and the associated benefits to the public, should be clear-cut enough that it can be confidently presented for a vote of the owners of the land: The citizens of Ann Arbor. These same voters are responsible for your being in office, and your respect for our decisions is provided for in the resolution offer a ballot to further amend and close a loophole in the City Charter.
I ask that you discuss the resolution and pass it tonight, so that voters can have a say, as they already expect, on how our public park land will be used.
Mayor John Hieftje
The city maintains standing commissions to provide oversight and guidance on different issues, the Environmental Commission, the Planning Commission Energy Commission, etc.
The Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) is charged with making recommendations to the city council on parks related matters. They are dedicated citizen volunteers with a lot of knowledge when it comes to parks. The Chair of PAC believes this proposal should go to PAC for discussion as do other members who have contacted me.
The chair is calling a special meeting for that to happen. Council will still have time to put this measure on the Nov. ballot if they choose.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
1bit
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.
Parkland is our land, not the Council's. If it is being "repurposed", it should not be by decree of the Council but rather the people. Yes, sometimes democracy is inconvenient.
foobar417
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 9:55 p.m.
Government by referendum, no matter how well intentioned, leads to a government like that found in California. (Not a recommendation!) Our democracy works best if our elected representatives have to make tough decisions and face the consequences at the voting booth.
foobar417
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 2:49 a.m.
There are all sorts of decisions representative governments can make that can't be taken back. (For example, granting mineral development rights.) It's always a risk that representatives will make a bad, irreversible decision. However, it's an equal risk that constraining their actions limits their ability to address unforeseen problems in the best possible fashion. That's why I believe that government by referendum, no matter how well intentioned, leads to a government like that found in California.
1bit
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.
True, but once the land is given away it cannot be taken back. No one is suggesting elimination of a representative democracy or California-style process. All that is being suggested is due process. There should be a very high burden on the Council to "repurpose" our parks.
kathryn
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.
I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, I want to protect the park land...it's one of Ann Arbor's greatest resources. But the idea of having to have voter approval for something that the city council should be handling, that seems like a bad precedent. Somehow that "money for art" arrangement comes to mind....and the state of California.
glenn thompson
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
Kathryn, the current city charter states the city cannot sell park land with out a vote of the citizens. This amendment was approved by a large majority of the voters. If the current Council was just willing to respect the intent of the voters on the last ballot amendment this charter amendment would not be necessary. The voters said we want to vote on the sale of park land by a large margin. Instead of accepting the voter mandate the Council majority choose to evade it by stating "we are not selling the park land. we are just giving a long term leases. We are just "re-purposing" it. Watch your Council member's votes and vote on August 7, 2012
newsboy
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.
For the people by the people!
Linda Peck
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
I support this resolution, we were supposed to have this anyway and through a loophole apparently do not. Citizens need to have this power over their parklands; the alternative is the kind of operational control over our public land that we have been seeing of late. I am not entirely unhappy with some decisions made by City Council, but the power they have and take is too much. To knock this effort supported by three strong Council members would be to take more power away from citizens, and I think this is a wrong direction we have been taking of late.
CynicA2
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.
"The Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) is charged with making recommendations to the city council on parks related matters. They are dedicated citizen volunteers with a lot of knowledge when it comes to parks." More like dedicated shills of the Mayor and his agenda-bound cronies on council. Anything that wrenches power from the hands of these clowns is a good thing - it is the next best thing to removing them from office, which will, hopefully, follow in August. Down with the Hieftje and all the Hieftje-ites!!
so much nonsense
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.
And by public use, I mean something that the public uses, enjoys or is a convenience. If a lease needs to be implemented to accomplish these things so be it.
so much nonsense
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.
I completely agree with Karen Hart and could not have said it better. If a future council or even this current council feels that a future PUBLIC use of any PUBLIC land, including park land, is in the best interest of the city, I want the council to have the opportunity to implement any innovation or progressive idea that is suggested. This proposal is shortsighted and only prevents future opportunities that are known and unknown from being discussed. Ann Arbor is supposed to be this progressive and forward thinking city. Lately, it appears that Ann Arbor has gone stale in their progressive thinking.
so much nonsense
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.
Voters should vote on tax increases, but this is not a vote about a tax it is a vote regarding policy. A vote that can't be changed as the years pass because it will be written in stone as a charter amendment. It just not affect current ideas, but all unknown opportunities in the future. With how low voter turnout is, the will of the people will not be represented by a vote everytime a new function or use is wanted on a piece of public property that happens to be a piece of parkland. We have representative on council who should be making those decisions. The voting public has no problem voting yes or no on a tax, but asking them to learn about an issue, in depth, learning the pros, cons and benefits will never happen for most voters. They will not take the time and therefore the actual best outcome may not pass due to uniformed and uneducated voters. Some issues are just too complex to be a ballot initiative everytime a new use comes up. With that said, I don't believe the real intent of this ballot proposal is to give people a say in the use of their parkland. The real purpose is to prevent any form of change happening in Ann Arbor. It is sad that the supporters of this proposal don't look to the future and see the dire effects this may cause.
Jack Eaton
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.
SMN said: "This proposal is shortsighted and only prevents future opportunities that are known and unknown from being discussed." Actually, this Charter amendment would not prevent or prohibit anything. Instead, it would require the additional step of seeking voter approval when park land is to be used for a purpose other that park or recreational use. If anything, the Charter amendment would require MORE discussion than is currently required. The Council would need to explain to the electorate exactly why parkland would be better used for some other non-park purpose. Voters have repeatedly authorized additional taxes for the acquisition and maintenance of our parks. In return, we just want the ability to decide whether to dispose or re-purpose the lands acquired and maintained with our tax dollars. That seems fair to me.
so much nonsense
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
And by public use, I mean something that the public uses, enjoys or is a convenience. If a lease needs to be implemented to accomplish these things so be it.
glenn thompson
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
The question; whether the citizens of An Arbor should have the right to vote on the sale, long term lease, or "re-purposing" of assets we paid to acquire, paid to improve and pay to maintain is a fundamental policy decision. This decision is clearly the role of the elected Council and ultimately the voters. It is not appropriate that Council defer this decision to a small group that is appointed by the mayor and not elected. It appears some members of Council are looking for justification to cast an unpopular vote. I encourage citizens to be aware of their Council member's votes on this issue and then to cast their votes accordingly on August 7, 2012.
Alan Goldsmith
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.
Funny, the Mayor stacks his commissions with puppets, doesn't reappoint anyone who disagrees with him and pretends Parks Advisory Commission and his hand picked chairperson are somehow going to DISAGREE with him NOW? Or be an independent voice? It's just a stalling tactic to delay this until after the August Primary so his puppets on Council won't have it as a campaign issue. Dodge and duck all you want Mr. Mayor--why are you AFRAID of public vote on the leasing-giveaway loophole? Why is the Mayor afraid of direct, participatory democracy? Why is he afraid of different opinions for anyone he appoints to a City position? All people want is government to be OPEN AND TRANSPARENT and they aren't getting it. AND former City Planning Director's fear of a pubic vote is repulsive as well. Enough!
xmo
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.
Why put it to the voters? We don't know anything, are too dumb to figure things out, that's why we have our elected Officials! It is really to bad that we even have elections to elect our Government Officials. They are so smart and know what is best for peasants!
Jack Eaton
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.
Perhaps if this were a final decision on whether or not to amend the City Charter, it would be appropriate to seek the advice of the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC). The resolution before Council only places this issue on the ballot to obtain the advice of the voters. What possible role can, or should, the PAC have in determining whether to seek voter approval of this amendment? There will be adequate time between the Council meeting tonight and the November election for the PAC and its individual members to express an opinion on the wisdom of this Charter amendment. Let the voters decide whether they wish to add further protections for our parks.
Barzoom
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 6:48 p.m.
The mayor and city council will pass this off to the parks advisory commission. They will say that the matter needs further study. They are hoping that the citizenry will forget about the issue. The current city government has proven time and again that they no regard for the wants of the people who live in this town. They have their own agenda. Until the voters express their displeasure at the ballot box we will get more of the same.
Brad
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.
"Too often, a "vote of the people" is decided by reactive emotion, incomplete information, or negativity and innuendo" That must be how we wound up with the group we have now. Thanks for your confidence in the democratic process.
a2grateful
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.
I am very glad Karen Hart is FORMER city planning director, given her faulty memory. She must have forgotten that decision-making authority regarding parkland disposition was taken back by citizenry, when they voted to strip this authority from un-trustworthy mayor and city council. . . That mayor and most council chooses to slime through a loophole to disregard the mandate is a major affront to voters, and both the letter and spirit of the voter-approved law.
Mike
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
Will you use the same good judgement and decision making process that you used when throwing taxpayer input out the window on the stop signs on Plymouth Road, or narrowing Huron/Jackson Rd, the narrowing of Stadium Blvd, redundant bike paths on both sides of Washtenaw Ave, a bicycle bridge that crosses US 23 while the bicyclists seem to enjoy the roundabouts better? I think it's time the taxpayers took away some of your responsibility and forced these things on a ballot..............