Supporters of Ann Arbor city charter amendment accused of 'poorly disguised political stunt'
Ann Arbor City Council Member Jane Lumm fought unsuccessfully for a vote on her charter amendment proposal Monday night and was accused of orchestrating a "poorly disguised political stunt."
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The Ann Arbor City Council delayed taking action Monday night on placing a proposed city charter amendment on the November ballot.
Mayor John Hieftje and other council members pushed for postponement of the proposal to give the city's Park Advisory Commission a chance to weigh in first.
The issue is expected to go before PAC either Aug. 6 or Aug. 8 and then come back to the City Council for consideration at 7 p.m. Aug. 9.
The charter amendment 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.
Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, called the charter amendment resolution a "poorly disguised political stunt."
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, had strong words for fellow Council Member Jane Lumm and other supporters of the proposal, calling it a "poorly disguised political stunt."
She questioned the timing with the issue coming up right before the Aug. 7 primary in which two incumbent council members — Tony Derezinski and Margie Teall — are up for re-election.
"This isn't about parks," Smith said during a tense exchange with Lumm.
"It's not political," Lumm fired back. "It's being presented because, believe it or not, some of us really believe in this and this would strengthen the protection of parks."
The political opponents of both Derezinski and Teall spoke out publicly in support of the charter amendment Monday night.
Jack Eaton, who is running against Teall, criticized the council for putting off the issue until after the August primary.
"If you oppose this resolution because you're afraid that the voters may approve the amendment, then you're trying to circumvent the will of your constituents," he said.
Even if the amendment passed council and was approved by voters, Eaton said, the new protections do not prevent putting a train station in Fuller Park.
"It merely requires that you also get the approval of voters," he said.
Sally Hart Petersen, who is running against Derezinski, said when citizens approved the 2008 charter amendment requiring voter approval for the sale of parks, they didn't intend for council to be able to repurpose parkland without voters having a say in the matter.
Petersen said she conducted an informal poll of residents via email and found 70 who responded were in favor of the charter amendment and seven were against it.
Jack Eaton, who is running against Teall, criticized the council for putting off the issue until after the August primary.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The resolution to put the question on the ballot was sponsored by Lumm, Sabra Briere and Mike Anglin. Only Lumm and Anglin pushed for a vote Monday night, while Briere joined the mayor and others in lobbying for postponement.
Briere said she discovered that even with the changes being proposed, there still would be some loopholes in the charter.
"The city could contract with a company that professionally manages water parks to run public pools. Because it's the same use, a recreational use, it wouldn't need voter approval," she said. "The city could contract with a golf course operator to operate Huron Hills. Because it's a recreational use, the same use, it wouldn't need voter approval."
Briere added, "Because the city wouldn't be selling or engaging in a longterm lease or a contract, the city could build and own a fire station, a homeless shelter, a train station, or a parking structure on a park without voter approval."
Briere said she supported postponement to try to work out some of those details and she welcomed PAC's advice.
The discussion on the charter amendment included a few tense exchanges between Lumm and Smith, whose quarrel can be traced back to emails exchanged earlier in the day.
In an email to the city's administration, Smith posed a series of questions about the charter amendment and copied the entire council on the message.
Lumm responded by trying to answer Smith's questions and replied to the entire council. Smith then wrote back to argue that Lumm's comments should be reserved for a formal meeting discussion and that she was likely violating the Open Meetings Act.
Later at Monday night's meeting, Smith argued not enough information had been presented in advance of the resolution coming before council.
Sally Hart Petersen, who is running against Council Member Tony Derezinski in the Aug. 7 primary, spoke in favor of the charter amendment.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"I was just trying to be helpful, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess," Lumm said during the discussion.
Lumm said the charter amendment was drafted with the help of Senior Assistant City Attorney Mary Joan Fales, whom she called "Thomas Jeffersonian in her efforts." She said the text also was approved by the state attorney general's office.
Hieftje said Briere raised some valid concerns, though. He said the worst thing council could do is put flawed language on the ballot.
"I am going to support the postponement to get this right," he said.
"I think having PAC input can only help," agreed Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward.
If the council doesn't vote on the resolution on Aug. 9, it still could act at its second meeting in August in time to place the issue on the November ballot.
Smith said there shouldn't be any rush, and she doesn't mind if the city misses the deadline for the November ballot.
"This is a charter amendment. This is our constitution," she said. "This is what we operate our city on. I cannot see the rush. I think it's an abuse really to go forward with it like this."
Lumm argued closing loopholes left from the 2008 charter amendment should be a priority, and she's hoping it will go on the November ballot.
"I believe the spirit, intent and expectations of the 2008 amendment were clear," she said. "Residents believed they were adding a layer of protection for parkland by ensuring the city needed voter approval before there would be any permanent, fundamental change in the use."
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
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 1:58 a.m.
If a park is "repurposed", then how is it still a park? Is this something we're really arguing about? Sure, the Council needs leeway in making decisions and governing in a representative fashion. But there should be a very high standard (i.e. voter acceptance) to give away our parks.
heresmine
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.
Treat park lands like wetlands. If you get rid of an area you're obligated to replace it somewhere else with an equal setting. So, sell or "repurpose" here, replace it with something else over there.
lynel
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 8:42 p.m.
Mike, don't try to confuse us with facts.
Arboriginal
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. The U has decided to build it's parking structure elsewhere.
mike umbolt
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.
Such informed posters! Such non biased posters! DNB lists council people absent for meetings that were never held. No wonder they weren't there! Good research! Bozo says "the city has not maintained the place where this train station is supposed to go, the weeds are 2' high!" Reality? There are no weeds there, it's a paved parking lot. Its below the hill under the hospital. The UM leases it as they have for 20 years and they take care of it. The city parks get the revenue. If it's on the internet it must be true!
DNB
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
"DNB lists council people absent for meetings that were never held. No wonder they weren't there! Good research!" Thanks, Mike. Anyone can do a quick search by year, and by meeting type, which is what I did. City Council meetings only; I didn't search any other committees that the 4th ward representatives may have served on. You can quickly see all dates, view the minutes, video, and agenda, if they are posted on the city's website. Of course, there may be more absences than those that I reported, because some minutes from 2012 have not been posted to the city's website...is that what you meant? ;)
DNB
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 9:07 p.m.
2012: http://a2gov.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx 2011: http://a2gov.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
DNB
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.
A search on A2 City's website one can easily determine who attends City Council Meetings regularly. 4th Ward absences only are noted below. Overall, the 4th ward wins the prize for lack of attendance. 01/09/12 Higgins 02/21/12 Teall 03/19/12 Teall 04/02/12 Higgins 05/07/12 Teall 06/04/12 Higgins * 01/18/11 Teall 02/22/11 Higgins 05/16/11 Higgins 07/05/11 Teall 07/11/11 Teall 07/13/11 Teall 08/29/11 Teall 10/10/11 Teall ** *Note: Minutes not available for 05/14/12, 06/11/12, 07/02/12 & 07/16/12 **Note: Roll call not reported on Minutes from 02/14/11, 06/13/11 & 12/12/11
DNB
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
Roadman: I think voters would be wise to pull up this page, and search City Council meetings by year. Then, pull up the minutes, and look at the roll call. It clearly states those present and those absent. It's an eye-opener. I would have searched many more previous years, but I do have to get some work done for my employer. There are minutes that haven't been posted for 2012, so I cannot say if they were present or absent for the dates listed above.
Roadman
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.
Thank you so much for these hard statistics. These back up the nicknames of the "Invisible Women" as very well deserved. This is one reason Jack Eaton is seeking to unseat Margie Teall.
Ron Granger
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 6:59 p.m.
How many of you complainers have NEVER spoken at an ann arbor city council meeting? Most, I'll bet.
DJBudSonic
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 3 a.m.
I have spoken at many, also at meetings of the school board and library board. Why does it matter to you? There are many ways to participate in a democracy, this quasi-public forum being one of them.
Roadman
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
Nobody can accuse Messrs. Partridge, Henry Herskovitz, Blair Shelton, Jack Eaton, Blaine Coleman or Mrs. Vivienne Armentrout of not appearing at the Public Commentary section of an Ann Arbor City Council meeting. They have engaged in First Amendment expression.
javajolt1
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.
You can call it a 'stunt'....but anything that give more control back to the actual citizens of Ann Arbor by allowing them to participate in big decisions through referendum, ain't a bad thing. What hubris exhibited by the Mayor and his cronies. Talk about promoting disenfranchisement. Apparently they always think they know better.
Greg
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 5:38 p.m.
Funny, how anybody who dares to disagree with this mayor is not doing things correctly.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
Translation: "How DARE you people try to shift even a little control of the city from City Council to the citizens!"
golfer
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:51 p.m.
ms smith you are so so wrong. this is about PARKS. every thing you people is political right down the party line. think of what the people want. they want to have a say so in this subject.
Wolf's Bane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
Jack be nimple Jack be quick Jack jump over the candlestick.
Arno B
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.
I say "Good for Lumm, Briere, and Anglin!" It sounds to me that Sandi Smith is pulling "a poorly disguised political stunt", not the other way around. Briere's comment about the situation where there is a "potential for the City to build and own a fire station, homeless shelter, train station or parking structure" is just asking for more trouble. Municipalities in the real estat business have been typical financial disasters: Just remember Ann Arbor's crumbling parking structures, the old YMCA, Pontiac's Silverdome, etc. Cheers!
Tom Wieder
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
Sandi Smith must have studied at the Joan Lowenstein School for Gratuitously Insulting People Who Disagree With You. To call the proposed amendment a political stunt is nonsense. The 2008 amendment clearly was intended to prevent City parkland from being turned into something other than parkland without a vote of the people. Whether the parkland is lost by an outright sale or by a lease and construction of non-park facilities on it doesn't make much difference - the parkland is no longer functionally parkland. (Perhaps Smith thinks parkland and "parking-land" are the same thing.) This new amendment is a straightforward attempt to make sure that parkland isn't lost to non-park uses without a vote of the people. The only political stunt here is delaying the vote so that certain councilmembers seeking renomination, and other candidates, don't have to take a stand on this before the primary. Referring the matter to the Parks Advisory Committee is a dodge. That committee is not there to advise on Charter language about the basic principle of disposal or repurposing of parkland. Here is it's mission (from the City's website): "The Park Advisory Commission (PAC) meets the 3rd Tuesday of each month at 4 p.m. Their purpose is to recommend policies and advise on park development. The Commission also provides a formal opportunity for public involvement regarding community park and recreation services. Topics discussed include park rules and regulations, park and recreation facility policies, fees, hours and scheduling, annual operating budget, park land acquisitions, major new development projects, and capital improvement and acquisition funding. Non-land acquisition meetings are open to the public and public commentary is welcome."
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
"Sandi Smith must have studied at the Joan Lowenstein School for Gratuitously Insulting People Who Disagree With You" And the award for best comment of 2012 goes to....!
Mike
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 3:07 p.m.
Respectfully, We need to prtect the parks and the remaining green spaces in Ann Arbor. We do not need to open these things up for voters since political money and temporary political leadership will force outcomes that will not reflect what is best for AA. We need an amendment that will keep everyone's hands off the parks and green spaces. Leave the parks alone and restore, grow and save our green spaces. The only discussion should be to enhance, support and defend what little "green" is left.
brimble
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
There is something new here: genuine discussion and disagreement among Council members. Sure, some of that discussion is charged in light of the forthcoming primary vote, but there is for the first time in many years a real discussion, rather than a narrow rubber-stamp process, going on at Council meetings. It'll be very interesting to see what turn the Council meetings take should Mr. Eaton and Ms. Petersen each unseat the current incumbents, resulting in the demise of the Mayor's silent majority. Real discussion for the betterment of the City is a likely result.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
"In the Fourth Ward, Council member Teall informed me that she will be leaving town for at least a week and is unlikely to be available for a Fourth Ward candidate forum." What a surprise! She is too busy to attend a candidate forum--surprise! I mean, she never responds to emails from 4th Ward residents, never speak out on issues impacting our neighborhoods, has been a rubber stamp for the Mayor since day one AND...now she's leaving TOWN for a week right before the August primary? If I were running on HER record, I'd run like the wind and disappear too. That's why from the Stadium Bridges to neighborhood flooding, she's rightfully earned the name of THE INVISIBLE WOMAN.
DNB
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 5:51 p.m.
Great post, Alan, as usual. I just counted the number of emails I sent Margie last summer, and it was seven...I also left 3 voicemails on her home phone. She was unable to reply in any way, shape, or form last summer, or ever, for that matter. Why would anyone think she would change her stripes now, and schedule a 4th ward candidate forum? Please, 4th ward voters, let's give Jack our votes on August 7th. We need someone on council who is willing to represent us and communicate with us. It's time for a change, for the sake of our neighborhoods, and our city. Best of luck, Mr. Eaton, in the primary!
Carole
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 2 p.m.
Agree totally with Mr. Goldsmith -- leave the park alone -- we don't need a train station at Fuller Park.
snapshot
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
Sandi Smith is guilty of advocating her own personal agendas at times too, so what's her problem? No one is trying to take her voting ability away, are they?
xmo
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
Lets just appoint the City Council Members for life so that we do not have to go on with these peasant uprising! After all, Isn't The Mayor the smartest man in Town? An his Followers the second smartest in town? I just love the "TRUST AND TRANSPERANCY" of our Democrat Elected Officials! Who Voted for these People? Certainly not the people of one of the smartest towns in the US?
Brad
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
Sorry - not the last council election - the last time Teall was up for reelection. In the last election I voted for whoever was running against Higgins.
Brad
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
For the record, in our last council election Teall ran unopposed and I cast a write-in for "anybody but Margie".
Bozo
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:23 p.m.
Has anyone else noticed that the city has decided not to maintain the park where this transit station is supposed to go? It used to have a nice soccer field. Now it is 2' high weeds.
James D'Amour
Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : midnight
@Mick 52: A soccer field was present up through 2010 east of current parking lot of portion of Fuller Park south of Fuller. As I indicated in post on previous thread, this area of park has been "fallow" since sewer line work was done last year. Also, a City Parks and Recreation sign labeling land on south side of Fuller Road as "Fuller Park" was removed during construction of sewer line and has not (at least as of yesterday) been reinstalled.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
I seem to recall going to Island Park with my parents while my brother played a round of golf across the river. I did a little looking and here's what I found (hope these links work). In this 1955 image, you can see the greens, and see that the golf course spread over to what is now U of M's Mitchell Field. http://tinyurl.com/cyuqlw7. In this 1963 image, still there. http://tinyurl.com/6wv5hcq. In this 1973 image, you can see the remainder of the greens, and see what I assume is the U of M commuter lot. http://tinyurl.com/7aw7l3h.
Mick52
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 5:13 p.m.
Golf course? Not as along as I have been around. Funny you should mention that. Many years ago, okay maybe decades ago, I did see an occasional person on that property hitting golf balls. That was the last time I ever saw anything resembling park like use there.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
Didn't it used to be a golf course?
Mick52
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 5:25 a.m.
I have never seen a soccer field at this "park." When was that? There are soccer fields across the street on the north side of Fuller Rd. Nobody uses this parcel as a park, its just a lawn.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.
That's so they can say, "Look, nobody's uses that park, anyway."
Larry Baird
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
In regards to Council Member Smith's comments last night, As one of the public speakers last night in support of this amendment and as a Ward 1 resident, I take issue with her blanket accusations. She speaks highly of "citizen volunteers", yet those who volunteered to speak last night in support of this amendment were arbitrarily dismissed by her. Also, her attempt to label Ms. Lumm a hypocrite by referencing the 4 Party Agreement discussions held months ago made absolutely no sense whatsoever and came across as bullying tactics. She should remember that "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"! I also take issue with AA.com's choice of headlines based on only a couple sentences uttered last night. No other council member made a similar blanket accusation, essentially discounting the views and motivations of the six residents who took the time to speak last night in favor of the charter amendment. This is an important issue to me and I would urge anyone reading this blog to contact city council directly (blogging does not count) with your views as well.
DJBudSonic
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 3:03 a.m.
We are getting one whether we want one or not, on Wall St.
1stWardDem
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
Good input Larry. I think that emailing the council members your feelings on issues is the right thing to do. You forgot to however, comment on how even one of the sponsors: Sabra Briere asked to take a step back? Could it be that the people in the 1st Ward in Lower Town, don't want a park structure by them that will ruin the aspects of that part of the ward? Shouldn't that also be a concern?
Diane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.
@Jack Eaton All the facts are not in regarding the ballot proposal? How can any councilmemeber take an actual position on this? Even Councikmemebr Briere took a step back to take a second look. Councilmemebers are supposed to weigh all the options and consequences before taking a position. Taking a position this early on when the resolution is so preliminary is actually irresponsible. I'm glad you are letting the voters know now that you are someone who will not look at all the facts but rather someone who will make uniformed judgements of issues that affect the entire city haphazardly and intentionally.
1stWardDem
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.
Keep up the good work Diane. It is hard when you are talking to people who are extremely bias, and are not willing to have a conversation about it.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
Diane, you didn't answer his question.
Diane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.
@Jack Eaton. This is not a modest amendment in the least. You may try to convince the public of that but this is a huge issue that needs to be looked at to make sure there are no unintended consequences and to make sure that this IS what the public wants. I am not convinced in the least that the silent majority is for this. You need to have respect for the process of government and our city. We have these commissions for a reason. Although council never has to adhere to any motion from a commission, it is nonetheless the process the City of Ann Arbor has instituted over the years. If it is the will of the council and the people, this issue can be brought up for a vote in the future but it does not have to be railroaded through like this. It has the appearance of impropriety and cover up of the facts. Allow time for the residents of the city to understand exactly what this means and how it will affect them.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
Diane, I would be interested to know what "fact" (as opposed to opinion) any member of PAC might have access to that Council members could not have acquired from our very capable Parks and Recreation staff. This matter could have been placed on the ballot and PAC as a body or any member of PAC individually could have offered support or opposition on whether the ballot issue should have been approved. Council's delay in its consideration of this amendment makes it more likely that the voters will not be given the opportunity to add further protections for our parks. Council members Lumm and Anglin have offered a narrowly tailored, well vetted and incremental improvement to the current Charter parks protection language. Attempts to address all conceivable misuse of park lands is more likely to result in unforeseen consequences than this modest amendment.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
In my comments to Council I also mentioned that delaying the vote on this resolution would deprive voters in the Second and Fourth Wards information regarding the incumbents' position on protecting park land. Perhaps this was seen as a "political stunt" by some. If I were voting in a contested Council race, I would want to know whether the incumbent wanted to add protections for parks. That information might help some to choose a candidate. In the Fourth Ward, Council member Teall informed me that she will be leaving town for at least a week and is unlikely to be available for a Fourth Ward candidate forum. Thus, we will not know her position on the park land protection amendment either by her vote at Council or through a candidate forum. Let me repeat my position. I strongly favor seeking the approval of the voters and strongly support approving the ballot question for an amendment to our City Charter to add further protections to our park land assets.
golfer
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.
1stWardDem : no we should not vote on everything. if we did we would not approve 1% increase in art. we would not approve crosswalks that will kill someone one day. by this i mean two lanes. one on the left stops. the one on the right goes right on through. does not work. but yes vote them all out except Jane.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.
1stWardDem, I am not advocating having residents vote on everything. I would like to extend their right to vote on the use of park lands. Parks are different because we pay special tax for the acquisition and maintenance of park land. As I recall, 80% approved the original Charter amendment requiring approval of the voters for the sale of park land. With that level of support, I expect that protecting park land from long term leases will also be approved. If the voters do not want that ability, they can vote against this amendment. Nothing I have said is meant to "insult" Council members. In a democracy, it is generally acceptable to disagree on policy matters. I disagree both with the decision to delay Council's vote and with those who oppose providing the extra protection for parks. I think it is odd that you include the issue of the Wall Street parking lot in this discussion. The proposal to put a huge parking structure on the Fuller Road park site failed because Council was afraid to seek approval of the voters and the University got tired of waiting for the City to fulfill its promises. Had the parking structure proponents not been afraid of the voters, the City could have offered to sell the land to the University and promptly put the issue on the ballot for voter approval. The convoluted posturing pursued in an attempt to avoid putting the question on the ballot is what killed the Fuller Road structure and caused the Wall Street plan to move ahead.
1stWardDem
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.
Do you support the public voting on everything? I thought the purpose of elections council members and representatives are for them to meet the wishes of the public. If they DO NOT then we VOTE THEM OUT of office. Do you think the public should have to give input on whether you are arguing a case, as you are a lawyer correct? Don't insult council members, as you may be one soon. I appreciate your advocacy, I think getting an organized group together and petitioning council and the mayor would be the correct way to go about it. IF PAC recommends it, then I think that would make it a done deal. Did council member Lumm and Anglin talk to the CITY ATTORNEY, not the Assistant, did they talk to PAC, previous ordinances have always had the blessing of their committee such as PAC, and the city staff. Why shouldn't we have that now? What do you think about the parking garage that will be built by Wall Street, have you spoken with those residents? Doesn't their voice count?
leezee
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:42 p.m.
I'm honestly wondering how many important activities Teall misses each year. From what I have read on AnnArbor.com, she's absent quite frequently.
Linda Peck
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
Wow, it does not get any better than this, amazing entertainment coming out of Monday night meetings! It would be high comedy if it were not that it totally affects our lives here in tree town. I do hope that those who think that Jane, Sabra, and Mike staged a stunt will see how voters feel about the vote down of this amendment. I am curious myself. I will be voting.
Linda Peck
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 6:31 p.m.
Thank you for pointing out my error. Perhaps I should have said a vote down, in case it actually happens after PAC has reviewed it. Still, it definitely does affect how I will vote, which will take place before the review comes up again. For me, it was a definite put down of the proposal.
1stWardDem
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.
The amendment was not voted down, in was tabled. It is still being considered council is waiting the recommendations of PAC, as has been done with many amendments in the past. I would encourage you to let your councilmembers know how you feel, but please use the correct terminology as it was not vote down.
Wolf's Bane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
While Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, seems to have her opinion about the charter amendment she also has ties to real estate (http://www.trilliumrealtors.com/) which may explain her opposition. Wouldn't it be smarter to do a city sponsored full analysis of park usage before passing a permanent charter amendment? I can't help but notice that most parks are usually empty at all hours of the day. I'd rather see a useful train station at Fuller giving us access to the city and Detroit instead of nothing.
Wolf's Bane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
Protecting empty land in the city center. Woah, nothing better to do, huh? How about the homeless? Liberty Square Plaza (a zest pool).
Lifelong A2
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:45 p.m.
I find it disturbing that the self-proclaimed champions of citizen input -- Lumm, Anglin, Eaton, Petersen -- opposed letting the CITIZEN committee (Park Advisory Commission) charged with giving input on these matters the opportunity to actually give input. The irony is so thick you'd need a chainsaw to cut it.
Nancy Shiffler
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 6:42 p.m.
The irony is that council never sought advice from PAC when they were funding all of the planning for a parking structure and train station in Fuller Park. Now all of a sudden they want advice.
1stWardDem
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
Then SallyP why were you opposed to tabling it if you wanted PAC's input? Why didn't you urge your Republican supporters such as Lumm, to send it to PAC and then bring the resolution? That is what a "life long" Democrat would have done.
Diane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
strange..how did that happen at the end of my post. It should have read: They have an agenda they want passed and that agenda is 'no change whatsoever'.
Diane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.
@ Brad it is not a mistake...maybe I should have said friends and neighbors. Since she is not a councilperson yet she will not have a contact list that includes all constituents who regularly want to know about things. It is easy to assume that she asked people in her social circle, people that she already knows. People you are already friendly with tend to think they same way you do. I still say that is not something to base your opinion on. Especially when she just admitted that she did not have all the facts about circumventing PAC. How did she present it to these people when asking about the issue? And I do trust council as a whole. I don't trust specific members of PAC and specific members of council to take the entire city in to consideration. They have an agenda they want passed ahttp://www.annarbor.com/news/supporters-of-ann-arbor-city-charter-amendment-accused-of-poorly-disguised-political-stunt/#nd that agenda is 'no change whatsoever'.
Brad
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:52 p.m.
@Diane - it says she took an informal poll of "residents". The substiution of "friends" is strictly yours, and is not a mistake I'm guessing. You do realize that if people truly trusted council we would not even be having this discussion, right? But they continue to try and weasel their way around the current law, so that's what we're left with.
Diane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:40 p.m.
@SallyP You took a position as a candidate on a resolution where you did not know the actually stance of the sponsors of the resolution? You are pushing for something to get railroaded through council instantly, (eventhough that never happens. Council has always been know for dragging things on too long.) How could you not know that Lumm and others were trying to circumvent PAC? You took an informal poll of your friends and used that as reasoning for your position? Really? These are not traits of a good candidate for council. When considering a last minute resolution, Councilmembers should listen to all the facts, reasoning and input and then take a side. Tony's silence on this shows thoughtfulness and an actual consideration for fact. That is what is in the best interest of the city. Regret over not doing your homework is not integrity.
SallyP
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.
Just to clarify, I spoke in favor of the resolution in advance of any discussion of letting PAC give input on it. I am in favor of PAC reviewing this; it is their responsibility to give input and advice on matters relating to parks. Doing so promotes transparency and is part of the due diligence. Sally Hart Petersen
antikvetch
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.
We really really really need to eliminate party designations for the Council.
David Cahill
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:07 p.m.
The claim that Lumm was violating the Open Meetings Act is plainly wrong and insulting to her.
1stWardDem
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.
What happened with Sabra? She was strongly supporting this and then she agreed with the Mayor's silent majority? Seems to me even Sabra understands that this needs more information. Funny, how the candidates you are supporting don't feel the same way. Little man's syndrome at its best.
Larry Baird
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.
Ms. Smith also insulted all six public speakers in favor of the amendement when she made her blanket accusation against the supporters of the amendment.
Brad
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
Briere may be right that there will always be loopholes. Probably the only answer is to elect people who won't spend all their time looking for ways to exploit them. Just like they've been doing with the Fuller Rd. property.
Barb
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
Ha, Brad, you ain't kidding!
Brad
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
"Petersen said she conducted an informal poll of residents via email " Wow. Here in the 4th ward that would never, ever happen.
Diane
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 11:49 a.m.
It is patently FALSE to assume the intent of the voters from the 2008 charter amendment was to prevent council from repurposing parkland. I, for one, voted for the charter amendment because I thought I was preventing council from selling pieces of the parks system in order to balance the budget. I thought I was preventing parkland from being sold for development of condos, or apartments or for a strip mall. I was never asked about repurposing in the ballot referendum so my intent was not clear as Jane Lumm insinuated. There was no loophole to close as she suggests because the question was NEVER asked. Their assumption is an overreach trying to push their political agenda on me and other residents. This is an anti change movement and has nothing to do with park protection. There is nothing wrong with using parkland for any other PUBLIC purpose that benefits the rest of the city. Parks are public land and are not just about nature, they are about recreation, entertainment and community. I would welcome some repurposing as long as it benefits the residents. California uses this method of asking voters about issues through ballot proposals, but it is a statewide effort. ( and I won't even go into how poorly that is worked out for them) Our issues will be small, local issues and with a town with no newspaper, how will the voters be properly informed and educated about the issues. The fact is they won't be. This group proposing the charter amendment is counting on that so that there will never be change in this town. This is a bad. bad idea being presented to the residents based on an assumption that never existed. It is ironic that the same ones that go around proclaiming "transparency", are the ones trying to slide this by the residents in order to stop change
Mick52
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 5:22 a.m.
Diane's post is the best one so far, just I was thinking. If the previous charter amendment stated sale, that is what it meant. Also it is not a good idea to put something in a city charter based on one single issue. Detroit did it and it is causing them a huge headache with their attorney. Leave this up to the council elections and see if the train station supporters stay in office.
Nancy Shiffler
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
When I voted for parkland acquisition millages over the years, I assumed that the money would be used to purchase parkland, and that it would remain as parkland. The millage language is a commitment to the people. To convert parkland to something else without a vote of the people subverts that commitment.
B2Pilot
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
Hey Diane, I'm glad you came full circle in your argument to state "Parks are public land and are not just about nature, they are about recreation, entertainment and community" An issue you seem to be missing are the roads leading to this mega station can not support the traffic that uses it today: what will happen when you add thousands more cars daily? another poor decision by the council that continues to ruin this city
jcj
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
"It is ironic that the same ones that go around proclaiming "transparency", are the ones trying to slide this by the residents in order to stop change" What is ironic is that a John Hieftje groupie thinks we don't see through your smoke!
a2grateful
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 11:25 a.m.
I was aware of several political stunts last night. The first occurred when Sandi Smith asked John Hieftje to share his recollection of participant comments of the Library lot parking structure "grand opening." Hieftje responded by pontificating a disjointed, rambling, personal mayoral vision/self justification diatribe that had nothing to do with Smith's gush over the new parking lot. Nice set up, Sandi. The second stunt was the postponent of the simply worded Lumm amendment. The amendment, steeped in voter respect, has clear language drafted by city attorneys, and approved by the state AG. Council majority sidestepped their responsibility by shifting issue analysis onus to PAC, one of Hieftje's appointee boards. We don't expect much from PAC, given its recent history of leadership members showing open and hostile disdain for law and constituency. For example, remember PAC vice chair, John Lawter, who enjoys and defends converting public school playgrounds to personal pooping grounds for his dogs, and all the dogs of his friends: 1) Lawter didn't use formal City dog parks. 2) Lawter used land in disregard of legal use, for selfish purpose. 3) Lawter disregarded constituency and their children. In other words, we won't expect profound analysis, leadership, or wisdom from PAC. The final political stunt was that of Teall and Derezinski saying nothing about the Lumm amendment. Their silence speaks volumes of their stance on Lumm amendment. Major thanks to Jane Lumm for her courage and tenacity in trying to right this capsized council and its leadership. Thanks to ALL of the public speakers for sharing their thoughts on the Lumm amendement, as well.
Waterdipper
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
It is a surprise to me that Mr. Derezinski was silent, since he's been pretty engaged on other topics before Council. However, as a voter in his Ward I can tell you that I've not received a single communication from him on any issue before Council since he was first elected, and the one time I communicated with him (by email) he failed to even acknowledge receiving my query, much less providing his views. I would like a Council member who occasionally communicates with his constituents on key issues.
Janet Neary
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 11:20 a.m.
The shame of all this is that we shouldn't need this kind of charter amendment or to worry about finding wording that ensures that our City Council can't find a tortured loophole to get around the clear intent. It is unfortunate that we seem to have representatives who are proud of their ability to find loopholes because they believe they know better than their poor unenlightened constituents.
dotdash
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
This is a great comment. If we could only trust them not to do end runs around the voters' intent, it would simplify things enormously. The whole Huron Hills fiasco opened my eyes. The voters had clearly tried to prevent exactly the scenario that the Council was trying to push through, but the Council found some slippery way to get around the intent of the law.
jcj
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 11:16 a.m.
Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, called the charter amendment resolution a "poorly disguised political stunt." Right anything that would give the voters of Ann Arbor some say must be a stunt!
golfer
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
sandi every thing you people do is political. so what is the diff between this and crosswalks, art commission etc.
Barzoom
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 10:48 a.m.
This is exactly what was expected from our mayor and city council.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 10:36 a.m.
Residents of Ann Arbor do NOT want to 'lease' (i.e. get rid of) City parkland--especially for a train station, period. John Hieftje knows it, everyone of his supporters on Council know it and he's scared silly to put this up to a vote. It's been that way his entire time as Mayor and the irony that someone who claims to have GREEN blood and pushed for the Greenbelt so there are plenty of hoop houses out in the townships is so opposed to protecting parkland in our City. Can you say HYPOCRITE?
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 10:29 a.m.
"Smith then wrote back to argue that Lumm's comments should be reserved for a formal meeting discussion and that she was likely violating the Open Meetings Act." Now that Smith is LEAVING she's concerned about Open Meetings Act violations? What a HOOT! She's done nothing but ignore being open and transparent her entire time on Council and time on the DDA and NOT she's seen the light? Amazing!
Brad
Tue, Jul 17, 2012 : 12:05 p.m.
If it walks like a lame duck and quacks like a lame duck ...