LSJ Blogs: Derek Melot is Just Asking

Great signs -- and not political ones

Kudos to whoever in Saginaw is behind the reinstallation of the Brenske Plumbling sign. I’m a sucker for these neon signs.

Seeing it today made me wonder what happened to the sign show in this photograph, part of our recent coverage of Kositchek’s century-plus history in Lansing.

The city of Lansing rewrote its sign ordinance to allow for more signage running perpendicular to storefronts, but the change has not spurred a surge in retro signage along Washington Avenue. (Cost and the economy may be two reasons for that.)

Looking past Gillespie's win

Now I know why developer Pat Gillespie looked so relaxed at Ryan Field last Saturday as he enjoyed the Spartans’ comeback against Northwestern.

On that rainy, then sunny Saturday, Gillespie’s big Market Place project was in limbo. The City Council had twice deadlocked on approving brownfield tax credits. Conflict was high; chances for progress seemed low.

Barely 48 hours later, Gillespie was back on track, though. Ingham Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina reviewed Gillespie’s legal request for relief from the council and granted it, forthwith. State law was on Gillespie’s side, a point Lansing City Attorney Brigham Smith had tried to make to the council before its votes.

So, where does this leave politics in Lansing?

Of unions and markets

 Bonnie Bucqueroux makes some solid points in her commentary about the political trends swirling around the Lansing City Council tax incentive votes. I particularly like this line: “High-school kids in Michigan graduate without ever learning that the enviable standard of living previous generations enjoyed was the direct result of the work of the unions in our state.”

I suspect there are plenty of young people out there oblivious to the fact their grandparents knew a world without a minimum wage, or that their parents knew a world with laws against a black person marrying a white person. Social change has come so fast, the recognition of, and understanding for, where we once were have been lost in the shuffle.

I do want to quibble with Bucqueroux on a tangential point, mainly because I’ve heard her view expressed elsewhere: “Frankly, I look at the new Lansing City Market and I see a pole barn, a facility far smaller and less appealing than the one it replaced. Does this inspire confidence about building Market Place next door? And why do the artist’s renderings rarely resemble the final project once it is built?”

If you're mad at council, act

I get that some folks in Lansing think Councilmembers Brian Jeffries, Eric Hewitt, Derrick Quinney and Carol Wood are wrong, or worse, on incentives for Market Place and the Armory project. What I don’t get is all the hand-wringing at council meetings and on our website.

If Lansing really doesn’t like what Jeffries & Co. have done, it should act. Michigan residents are lucky in that they have the ability to recall most public officials. So, if this treatment of Pat Gillespie is truly a tragedy, etc., do something about it.

I’m not a fan of incentive deals — as LEDC head Bob Trezise will tell you with a shake of his head. I don’t think the council is in any position to expertly judge the proposals in front of it. And once you start handing out help, it’s hard to stop.

I also wonder if Gillespie can really create an “urban village” at Market Place. I hope he can; I’m just not sure the market is there yet.

I don’t begrudge Jeffries and Co. from doing what they perceive to be in their best interests. There’s a method to their opposition. I don’t agree with it, but they won the votes and the seats and they’re using them.

If city voters don’t like that, they should move to remove them forthwith. Please don’t bore us all with testimonials and concerns and frustrations. In politics, you keep score.

And, for those so interested, the state’s briefing on recall procedures is here. City Clerk Chris Swope tells me that the earliest a recall election can be held would be in May.

So, there’s a path to take. It’s not an easy one. But this political standoff really is that big a deal for the city’s future ... right?

Snyder: Dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge

My initial encounter with Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder was deflating, but in an explainable way.

Leading by a huge margin and facing anxious — and therefore potentially fickle — voters, Snyder spent an hour trying to say absolutely nothing to the LSJ Editorial Board last Friday.

Learn to play politics

The dispute over local tax incentives and Project Labor Agreements is a simple clash of interests. Pat Gillespie, as a businessman, is trying to keep his costs down — by gaining public help and by avoiding commitments that he thinks will raise his costs.

Area unions want their members to get more work and higher wages. They are using their political influence to tie public help to concessions from Gillespie.

I don’t think anyone “won” last night at the City Council. In 4-4 votes, the council knocked down incentives for two projects, Armory and Marketplace. It failed to adopt a standing policy to link tax incentives to PLAs. City Attorney Brig Smith told the council it couldn’t make the PLA requirement legally anyway.

So, let’s review last night’s work:

Danger, Will Robinson, danger

I think we’re all familiar with the “dying Rust Belt” theme that’s been played in policy and political circles for 30 years now. It’s strange how the Midwest has been dying for decades, yet is still alive.

Maybe they’ll need to change the terminology: “Zombie Rust Belt cities” has a ring to it.

Of course, we are safe from the zombie threat so far — and seem to be doing just fine on other public safety threats, judging by this little ranking of the nation’s most dangerous neighborhoods.

Land Bank winning tree contest

When it comes to tree hugging, the Ingham County Land Bank has a lead over Lansing’s Principal Shopping District.

The Land Bank has possession of the former Deluxe Inn site. The old motel was demolished recently and, despite the use of big, ungainly pieces of equipment, workers managed to preserve a lone pine tree that stood in the courtyard of the structure. It now stands as a lonely sentinel guarding a prime bit of riverfront property.

The PSD, regular readers may recall, took the opposite tack back in July. In claimed compliance with a commissioned plan to govern trees and streetscape improvements downtown, PSD had three pine trees cut down at the corner of Kalamazoo and Washington Square. The pines, apparently, weren’t the right type of tree for PSD’s plan — a plan that also calls for preserving existing trees wherever possible.

So, I score that ICLB 1, PSD -3.

City should do all sidewalks

The enactment of a revised snow/ice removal ordinance covering city sidewalks revealed that Lansing has reached a dead-end on the issue.

Rather than writing tickets for specific people who fail to clear a sidewalk on their property, the city will now issue a citation against the property itself, clear the walk with city resources and attach a bill on to the parcel’s property taxes.

That’s not exactly a great leap forward — or backward. The city’s shuffling about on a way to handle the small minority of property owners who don’t clear their walks.

May I suggest a different, perhaps even radical, alternative?

Will city cite itself on snow?

The Lansing City Council’s vote for a new snow/ice removal ordinance raises at least one question in my mind:

What happens when the city itself violates its new ordinance.

According to the language posted in the council’s meeting packet, the ordinance says:

“No person shall place or cause to be placed ice or snow upon a right-of-way so as to impair vehicular or pedestrian traffic.”

OK, as Lansing residents know, it’s not an uncommon event for a city plow to unintentionally throw snow and ice off a street and on to the adjacent sidewalk. In that case, will the city cite itself? If so, who would pay the resulting tab?

Do we dock Chad Gamble, head of public services? Do we hit Mayor Virg Bernero’s wallet? Or do we assign a prorated portion of the fee to each member of the City Council?

I have a question on this in to City Attorney Brigham Smith. I’ll forward his answer when it comes in.

UPDATE: That was fast. Within minutes of me posting, Smith had an answer on this, which I reproduce below in its entirety:

"The starting (and ending) point is that the City already has a policy calling for it to clear public sidewalks within 24 hours, which is much more stringent than the ordinance, under which people have up to 5 days to clear their own sidewalks before the City intercedes.  To say that the City is not holding itself to the same standard it holds its citizens is correct: The City holds itself to a higher standard.

"Beyond the fact that the City already has a policy in place that is more stringent than the ordinance, enforcing the ordinance against itself would be legally problematic for a number of reasons.  First, the City is a municipal corporation, not a "person" as that term is used in the ordinance.  Second, even if it were a "person" under the ordinance, the enforcement mechanism would be something out of a Lewis Carroll novel.  Should the City fine itself?  If so, how?  If it fails to pay the "fine," does the fine go as a lien against the City?  If so, how?  The City is a tax-exempt entity; there are no means to place a tax lien against the City, let alone for the City to collect such a lien against itself.

"While these are (perhaps) interesting legal questions, the practical fact remains that the City's policy already requires more of the City than the ordinance requires of its citizens.  Hope this helps."