|
Recent and past news and
comment provide context for evaluating current events.
Re School Board
Election
Some Democrats uneasy with Democratic Club
The non-partisanship necessary in school-related elections is being
violated by the Royal Oak Democratic Club, according to some Democrats
engaged in a listserv exchange of comments. Apparently, that club and County
Commissioner Dave Woodward, wearing his Oakland County Chairman's hat, are
openly supporting one candidate for Trustee on the Royal Oak School Board.
That candidate happens to be a political consultant said to be guiding the
campaign of Democrat Brenda Lawrence to unseat Republican Oakland County
Exec L. Brooks Patterson.
The listserv dialogue makes the point that
the School Community needs bipartisan support when it seeks renewed or new
funding. According to one self-described "yellow-dog Democrat," Woodward was
a major factor in achieving the School Community's win during its third try
for a millage several years ago. At the time, VersagiVoice is told, Dave
wasn't so much being political as simply helpful in mounting an
issue-oriented campaign. For that, today's dissenting Dems are grateful,
even as they are "angry about the level of support" the Democratic Party is
offering its preferred candidate. (This is being written just before the
election. The local press will probably name some of the members of the
cast. We'll have to wait to see how it all turns out.)
Local Government at its best
What do you get when you mix School Board trustees and School Administrators
with City Commission members and City Administrators in the same room?
You get a sample of local government at its
best.
That was my impression after sitting through a
90-minute meeting during which School Board President Gary
Briggs guided the gathering through an agenda containing a dozen items.
This was the 15 April 2008 meeting of the City/School Liaison Committee
which meets quarterly.
Part of the discussion was simply information
exchange,
updates of previous discussion re Longfellow Property and of Bus
Stop developments, as examples. More detailed dialogue took place about
such matters as the Voluntary Random Drug Testing program the School
District is implementing and about the Notification System which will
make it possible to simultaneously alert hundreds of households or
individuals of any emergency, such as a lockdown.
Discussion about practical matters as why the
Schools must follow newer drainage criteria when repairing or
improving a parking lot brought forth information about state and federal
standards and about eliminating flooded basements. "Asphalt-on-asphalt"
is only a short-term fix, apparently, but it avoids the expense of meeting
the new standards which must be followed when all existing pavement is
removed. There was an exchange of information about whether the city's
normal schedule of maintaining and updating streets can be adjusted
to accommodate more quickly the streets near schools.
Talk of removing some crosswalk signals
included the need to stay aware of student-count and location as people move
out of and into the neighborhood. Conversation about the financial
arrangements needed to maintain the Police Liaison Officer for the
schools led to a review of that officer's responsibilities during school
closings and holidays. Commissioner Drinkwine* joked, "Maybe we can
trade a street for a police officer!"
Then there were simple announcements, like
exploring the possibility of tying House & Home tours to the annual Dream
Home Expo.
A couple of ad hoc subcommittees were formed to
follow up on this or that. Most decisions reached by this City/School Liaison
Committee remain tentative until approved at regular meetings of CITCOM or
of the School Board, but the quietly conducted dialogue, even if
occasionally gingerly, made possible productive exchanges of information and
opinions which serve both constituencies well.
* So friendly and relaxed
was this meeting that I failed to record who was present. Sitting here
trying to visualize the seating, I come up with:
-
From the City:
City Manager Tom Hoover, Commissioners Terry Drinkwine and Carlo
Ginotti, Police Chief Ted Quisenberry, City Engineer Elden Danielson,
and recently appointed City Comptroller Tony DeCamp.
-
From the Schools:
Superintendent Tom Moline, Administration Staff John Schwartz and Andy
Linell, Board Members Gary Briggs, Christine Hartwig, Deb Anderson . . .
plus several individuals I didn't recognize.
Deny a
lot split, get sued
A while ago, CITCOM denied a lot split, even though the proposed split meets
the city's requirements. The owner sued. A settlement was reached during
CITCOM's 30 July 2007 Special Meeting. City Attorney Dave Gillam provides the
following informative summary.
This lawsuit
involved an appeal of the City Commission's October 9, 2006 denial of an
application for a lot split at 208 Mt. Vernon. The Consent Judgment that
was approved at this Monday's City Commission meeting was a result of
settlement negotiations between our office and the property owners'
attorneys. Our office had recommended that the City enter into a settlement
approving the land division because the resulting lots meet or exceed all
applicable Zoning Ordinance regulations regarding lot size (although one of
the two lots will be the narrowest in the neighborhood). In exchange for
the approval, the property owners have agreed to comply with all Zoning
Ordinance requirements when the property is developed (building height,
setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) and not seek any variances of any kind from
the Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition, the settlement places limitations
on the style of any home that is built on the property to ensure
that the home will be architecturally compatible with the existing homes in
the neighborhood. -- Aug 2007
Who are those people?
VersagiVoice readers have asked the identity of the young
man, sometimes accompanied by a female companion, who regularly sits in on
meetings of the city commission, the plan commission, the zoning board of
appeals, the DDA, and the like. On Wednesday, 16 May, the two were the last in
the public seating area as the Downtown Development Authority meeting ended.
Puzzled, one or two of the directors asked, "Did you want something?" Later that
day, the two showed up at and participated in the Neighborhood Leaders meeting
where City Attorney Dave Gillam spoke.
The young man is Royal Oak resident Andrew
Androff, who announces his intention to run for city commissioner on his
website: www.AndrewAndroff.com. He is
informing himself about Royal Oak issues and personalities and government
operations by attending as many civic/political events and meetings as he can.
Androff's "campaign manager/girlfriend" is Katie Mato, "who served on the
finance team for Rudy Giuliani's Exploratory Committee," and who has returned to
Michigan to help in Andrew's campaign.
-- 23 May 07
Royal Oak 50 years
from now
Architects see current
'10-block urban fabric' expanded
Parks, not parking lots . . . Density, not
sprawl . . . Walkability and convenient transportation ("street
trains") . . . A new City Hall erected above underground parking . . .
Attractive, clustered, 6-story multi-use buildings . . . An expanded Farmers
Market . . .
Such was the upbeat vision
projected with words and PowerPoint by local architect Frank Arvan, of
FX Architecture LLC, to about 50 people, including Royal Oak Mayor Jim
Ellison, who attended an event tied to the celebration of the 150th
Anniversary of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Laying the
foundation for his futuristic presentation, Arvan pointed out
that currently if one walks west from the Farmers Market for several blocks
one will be "walking mostly through parking lots ."
Urban redevelopment proceeds
through three stages, the architect explained: Step 1 is restaurants and
entertainment. Step 2 is increased residential. Step 3 is combining steps 1
and 2 with expanded mixed use
development.
Royal Oak has accomplished Step 1 and is transitionally combining Steps 2 and
3, one infers from Arvan's presentation. It was appropriate that the event was
held in one of the empty retail spaces on the south side of multi-use Main
North Lofts.
Responding to Arvan's recalling
that Royal Oak was an important urban hub in the 1920s, the curator of the
Royal Oak Historical Society Museum, Muriel Versagi, described a couple
of historical artifacts in the museum's collection: An 1872 map which
shows Old Pontiac Trail (now Woodward) coming through Royal Oak, "with a hotel
at Woodward and Ten Mile." And, a 1919 photograph showing a rally in
front of the Inter-urban train, with a sign declaring Royal Oak the "Gateway
to Detroit" and touting three miles of newly paved road. "Everything old is
new again."
Arvan and several other architects
who reside in Royal Oak assembled a professional-and-academic team to develop
the case study of Royal Oak and its presentation, as their tie-in to the AIA's
statewide
150th Anniversary celebration. Arvan is willing to offer the presentation to
local civic and professional groups. He can be reached at 248.586.0336. In the
accompanying picture, he is shown answering a question after the session ended --
probably about "going green."
The Farmers Market and
The Library --
Should they be city-owned?
The ongoing fight about parking at the Farmers
Market lot has caused some civic activists to suggest that -- for both similar
and different reasons -- the question of city ownership of the market and the
library should be
reviewed. For the Library, the parking problem takes the form of whether and how
it should validate/pay parking fees for its patrons. Beyond parking
though:
§ Nationwide, reports are
accumulating which show reduced attendance at public libraries,
especially among children. Books by Hemingway go for two years without being
borrowed. "'Doctor Faustus' has survived for more than four centuries
but hasn't been checked out in the past 24 months." Part of the problem is the
availability of reference material via the Internet; another part is an
apparent drop-off in book-reading. Libraries are counterattacking by changing
the nature of their venue, critics charge. Children and adults no longer have
to depend on a library to conduct research or simply to locate a single piece
of information (some
librarians complain that callers bother them for information "they
could have found sooner on their own online") So libraries are becoming
entertainment centers and offering videos and compact discs and services which
are available in the private sector.
Libraries have become "welfare
programs for middle-class readers who would rather borrow Nelson DeMille's
newest potboiler than spend a few dollars for it at their local Wal-Mart." .
. . Mitch Albom's "latest tear jerker" outpulls Bronte, Faulkner,
Hardy, Proust -- all of which have been removed from the shelves. That
being so, "Why must we have government-run libraries at all?"
At the very least, some
suggest, public libraries should be removed from city budgets and made
independent, a la school districts, to seek public and other financing and
to be totally independent in their operations, including in hiring and firing.
§ About Royal Oak's Farmers Market,
the buzz -- after Commissioner Drinkwine's suggestion that professional
management be retained -- includes dialogue about privatizing the market. Like
the Library, the Farmers Market is considered a city "jewel," a reputation
enhanced by the fact that it operates at a profit, requiring no money
from the city's General Fund.
Those who are less entranced with
the Farmers Market maintain that with toy sales and other special events, the
market is no longer a farmer's market. Further, they suggest it is not really operating profitably
when
such matters as the following are considered:
The city purchased the
building, so the Market pays no mortgage or rent. . . . It is owned by the
city, so no tax payments; therefore vendor-rental fees are below private
sector prices. . . . Streetscaping is provided at no charge; private
businesses would love that freebee! . . . Maintenance costs and upgrades are
funded by the Downtown Development Authority (was that a $500,000 check?) .
. . "Without all these perks, the Farmers Market could not stand on its own
two feet."
All this comes at a time when
private sector retailers are
complaining about the lack of help or cooperation from City Hall.
About the Farmers Market, former
city commissioner Tom Hallock writes:
Re: Farmers Market debate. A couple of factual
corrections.
The DDA does not pay for Market maintenance costs, it is either paid for out
of Market profits if it is a large item or the City takes care of it if
minor as it is owned by the city.
Secondly, quite true the DDA donated $500K to the Market for renovations,
grateful for that. However, the other $800K came from profits made by the
Market. The next renovation of the Kitchen area comes solely from Market
profit.
About the Library,
Metta Lansdale has her say.
Asst City Attorney sues City --
Of course, it's a conflict-of-interest
At Issue:
According to news reports, Royal Oak Assistant City Attorney Brian James
has filed three legal actions against the City, the latest being a lawsuit
filed in U.S. District Court in which he charges that the city retaliated
for his joining a union and his pro-union advocacy on his radio and cable talk
shows. Somewhere in there are charges of emotional stress,
mental anguish, humiliation, and the like. [Disclosure: Sometime during
2006, VersagiVoice published an interview
with James
-- unfortunately not archived -- about his talk shows. In other writing, I have suggested, among other
things, that the City Attorney's Office be privatized or at least downsized.]
Limited and cautious published statements from the City lead
readers to believe the issue is much narrower than all that, that he was
relieved of some of his duties after Police Chief Ted Quisenberry
objected to a union steward, James, handling collective bargaining matters for
management when management is dealing with other unions.
"Conflict-of-interest" seems to be the City's foundation-position.
Some Impressions:
With decades of collective bargaining experience behind me, I find it
impossible not to comment in brief bullet-points.
-
Whether James's lack of work assignments is
unfair "retaliation" will be decided by the National Labor Relations Board, if
the NLRB decides the charge deserves pursuing. I haven't followed developments
closely, but I assume James is speaking for the entire bargaining unit, not
just for himself.
-
Whether James has suffered compensable
emotional stress and like is for the Federal Court to decide, if the complaint
gets to hearing or trial.
-
If the same rules apply to pubic sector
collective bargaining as to the private sector, the Union -- in this case the
Teamsters -- and the City each has a 30-day window during which to notify the
other party of an intention to terminate the existing agreement. The 30-day
window must be no less than 60 and no more than 90 days before the contract's
expiration date. What happens between now and March, therefore, may affect
either or both the pending NLRB and Federal Court action.
-
Re: the basic question of whether it is a
conflict of interest for James, who is a union steward, to negotiate for
management (his employer) with other unions: of course that is a conflict
of interest. A parallel: Would James be comfortable with his
boss-management-the City Attorney, representing him in negotiations with his
union?
Unfortunately, in the legal arena matters become
excessively convoluted. I once testified before the NLRB for several hours on
each of two days, even having the honor of being declared a hostile witness by
the attorney who had asked for my testimony. As lawyers are wont to do, what we
covered -- in excessive and meaningless detail -- over those two days could
easily have been resolved in an hour or two outside the legal arena. What drives
the layman crazy, of course, is that in these situations procedure tends
to overwhelm substance. "Where was he sitting when he made that
statement?" for example, when the issue is what the guy said, not where he was
sitting.
Back to Brian James and Royal Oak: The context
will be muddied by the fact that what might otherwise be a straightforward
labor-management disagreement will be caught up in public conjecture about
everything from the city's financial plight to personal likes and dislikes
toward the individuals involved and toward the City Attorney's Office as an
institution. -- FJV: Jan 2007
Not in Royal
Oak --
Neighborhoods are 'second'
Royal Oak is lucky.
Although there is some animosity directed toward "downtown" by occasional
residents or resident groups, there is no discernible counterattack by
"downtown" against neighborhoods. No Royal Oak civic leader or business
owner or city official, for example, has said anything like, "Neighborhoods
are important, but they're second," as a Michigan Economic Development
Corporation spokesman announced during a discussion in Warren about that
city's intention to develop a downtown and to remove blight.
Those concerned about downtown Royal Oak tend to fret about
the mix of conventional retail and restaurants/bars and about liquor
licenses. Except for the occasional charge that neighborhoods in the South
End are neglected by city officials, one hears positive things about Royal
Oak neighborhoods. And there is praise for those regular meetings with neighborhood leaders
arranged by City Manager Tom Hoover. No one has said of Royal
Oak what one Warren councilman is reported to have said about his city: "We
have some institutions that were destroyed by the administration for the
sake of downtown development." In Royal Oak even the size and shape of the
attractive parking structure on Lafayette was affected by the preferences of
nearby residents.
Let's go national.
Spokespeople for the National Trust Main Street Center -- while
acknowledging the desire to preserve historic buildings -- say, "Clothing
and hardware stores will never return to the town center. Restaurants, bars,
offices, even private housing [condos?] need to be given a place on or near
Main Street." To help such revitalization, a couple of states, Montana and
Nebraska so far, are offering state aid to small entrepreneurs.
Royal Oak retailers understandably and properly reject that
conclusion. For one thing, the growth-impact of restaurants and bars in
Royal Oak has peaked. It is accurate enough to say, these days,
"Restaurants come and go" as restaurateurs and developers continue to try to
find the right mix of sports bars, family meals, ethnic cuisine, and upscale
dining. Anytime now, absentee property owners will have to face that it is
unwise to keep their property vacant while hoping for a new eatery to want
the space. So rents should drop to the point that conventional retailers can
justify returning to downtown Royal Oak.
That brings us back to neighborhoods. Too many of them seem
to have given up on downtown, complaining that "those people" are not
reflective of Royal Oak. True, the youngish crowd which frequents bars and
restaurants may or may not be residents and are not good prospects for
conventional retailers. But there are retailers downtown, and -- especially
during the day -- there's enough parking to accommodate regular residents
when they come into town. The hope is that when all the condos are built
there will be enough prospective customers to justify a dry cleaner and drug
store and other conventional retail -- and downtown will become just another
neighborhood.
-- Jan 2007
Charter Review Committee goes
into action
Guided by Commissioner Carlo Ginotti, Royal Oak's Charter Review
Committee held its first 2007 meeting on 09 January. The committee made its
first pass at creating a list of items to address. CRC's charge:
simplify and modernize Charter language; improve the Charter's ease of reading
and render it more understandable; and update the Charter so that it is in
concert with current practices and ordinances.
In addition to setting priorities for the
topics suggested by CRC members or requested by the City Commission, the
committee will again survey department heads for proposed amendments or
language changes.
CRC members are Commissioner Carlo
Ginotti; retired City Attorney Chuck Semchena; attorney David
Poulton; and two non-attorneys: Frank Versagi, webmaster of this
website; and Ryan Shelby, creator of the online community forum
www:royaloaksoundoff.com. Poulton was elected Chairman.
City Attorney Dave Gilliam attended
the meeting as the required legal liaison, sitting in for Mark Liss,
Assistant Deputy City Attorney, who was ill.
City
Engineer ignored evidence supporting back-in angle parking?
Frank,
I disagree with your comment that Danielson's report provided all the
information the Commission needed to make an easy yes or no decision on how to
best implement angle parking. I
also found his recommendation to be contradictory to the information provided.
Back-in
Angle Parking
Danielson cited three safety advantages to back-in angle parking:
1) Better visibility when
leaving the parking stall.
2) Access to vehicles and trunks from the sidewalk.
3) When doors are open they face the sidewalk.
The negatives he cited
were:
1) Birmingham participants
didn't like it.
2) People might hit inanimate objects on the sidewalk.
Regarding the Birmingham
participants who didn't like it, I say so what. Their opinions are based
solely on ‘feelings’ and aren’t relevant to Royal Oak's situation. They
had converted from pull-in to back-in angle parking. Change is hard.
Royal Oak is converting from parallel. Parkers in Royal Oak are already
used to back-in parking, because they do it everyday as part of their parallel
parking maneuver on S. Washington.
If Birmingham’s
experience was worth citing, then the long-term experiences of other cities
should have been included. Wilmington,
DE; Seattle, Tacoma & Vancouver, WA; Indianapolis, IN; Washington, D.C.; Montreal, Canada; Portland & Salem, OR; Salt
Lake City, UT; Tucson, AZ and Pottstown, PA all have back-in angle parking, some for close to 50 years.
In summary they report:
-
They prefer back-in angle
parking because it is safer, especially for pedestrians.
-
They haven’t
experienced significant problems with accidents or impediments to travel
flow.
-
By ordinance, one city requires all angle
parking to be back-in because of the safety factor.
Regarding inanimate
objects on the sidewalk, move them if they are in peril. Or install bollards
or concrete bumpers to protect them. What
is the feedback from other cities about the validity of this concern?
Pull-in Angle Parking
Danielson cited no advantages or disadvantages specific to pull-in angle
parking. I’m unaware of any advantages, but the following disadvantages
should have been cited or clarified:
-
General traffic engineering practices don’t
recommend backing out of parking spaces into live traffic lanes.Pull-in angle parking creates fewer new
parking spaces and ergo, less meter revenue than back-in.
-
The pull-in angle parking layout required a
setback from the departure side of all intersections to mitigate the chance
of backing vehicles from impacting pedestrians in crosswalks.
-
What wasn't mentioned is that this requirement is unique to pull-in
angle parking, because with back-in angle parking you don't back out of the
parking spaces, so there is no greater risk to pedestrians than there is with
parallel parking.
The pull-in angle parking plan reduced the
parking stall angle to 40 degrees because angles greater than 40 degrees could
cause drivers to cross the double yellow centerline into opposing traffic when
performing the back out maneuver. Again
this is unique to pull-in angle parking.
I say do the math.
If you were to base your decision solely on the information contained
in Danielson’s report, the answer is clear. Back-in angle parking has three safety advantages over pull-in angle
parking. But what doesn’t add up
is why he recommended the option that had less safety advantages.
In fact, it is contradictory to the information provided, and in my
opinion, reason enough for Commissioners to question it. Further, any specific disadvantages attributed solely to back-in angle
parking are irrelevant or easily resolved.
-- Sandy Johnson, Former RO Parking
Committee Member
|
Dale
Carnegie sandwich --
Dear Sir, you cur .
. .
Many of those who choose to disagree in writing to something I've written use
what I call a Dale Carnegie sandwich. The response begins with a
bit of praise, offers a criticism or objection or counterargument, and ends with
a polite "thank you for listening" type of comment. Thus, most of
those who respond to VersagiVoice begin by lauding my "reasonable approach"
to things, suggest where I'm wrong, and end with a gentle remark.
In my days as an industry
journalist, when I reached about 90,000 readers worldwide each week, the letters
were longer and more pointed than today's emails but had the same "Dear
Sir, you cur . . . " flavor. Then, as now, 95% of the missives were signed.
Unsigned correspondence was/is almost always more emotional than rational. Anonymous
comments to VersagiVoice display a subtler range of tone, probably
because most of the writers know me personally, and most of them address issues,
not personality. One unidentified reply to my suggestions about resolving Royal
Oak's budget problems, for example, states simply, "Your plan for Royal Oak
is not defensible."
Personal criticism need not
descend to personal abuse. It would be unreasonable of me, for example, to take offense
when someone characterizes me as opinionated or assertive. I am both. Similarly
it is not abuse when I chide this or that city commissioner
about his or her debating style.
Neither public officials nor publishers of
vanity websites can function well if they have a thin skin. And it goes without saying that
everyone should be free to disagree about issues, about the judgments and
opinions of colleagues, citizens, fellow club members, elected officials, city
employees.
Yes,
Virginia, Royal Oak once had a deputy city manager
For longevity, it will be hard to beat the
1931-1961 service of City Manager Edward E. Shafter. Before becoming city manager, Shafter
had served as engineering consultant (1922-26) and as city engineer (1926-31).
And, yes, Virginia, Royal Oak has had at least one deputy city manager.
Bruce
Love, who replaced Shafter and served 1961-1965, was "assistant city
manager" from 1956-1961.
This information appears as notations on the back of old photographs being
catalogued by the Royal Oak Historical Society. The society also found the 1949
Financial Report from which VersagiVoice is extracting interesting bits
of history. [See] -- August 2005
Not in Royal Oak
Good fences, good neighbors make?
Royal Oak residents are objecting to a couple
of fences -- in one case because of aesthetics, in another because a legal fence
makes the neighbor's driveway so narrow that she can't open her car door enough
to get out of the car.
Given that Royal Oak is apparently named after a tree in
merry old England, it is fun to read that a so-called "Anti-Social
Behaviour Act in Great Britain enables "neighbours to involve their local
council in disputes over the height of a hedge."
People there plant fast-growing hedges as
fences; the hedges provide a high green wall in little time. But because such a
hedge can block a neighbor's view or cast shadows, chainsaws have been used,
surreptitiously, to "correct" the problem. People have been fined or
jailed. Now, hedge-owners will be fined up to $1,850 if their hedge is more than
2 meters tall; that's about 6½ feet.
I thought "green is
good!" -- FJV 16 June 2005
Schools matter more than city government?
Until the city commission's May 16th dual
meetings -- [click
on "Impressions," above] -- to judge by written and oral
reactions to the news and opinions I publish, parents of school-age children
were more concerned about the possible rejection of a yet-to-be-developed bond
proposal than residents overall were worried about the City of Royal Oak's
financial problems. The cynics among my readers suggest that "the school
community" -- parents, teachers and their unions, administrators and their
unions, the school board -- is planting scripted
talking-points through letters-to-the-editor, anonymous phone calls to the
press, and reactions to VersagiVoice.
Talk of possible millages, dedicated or not,
of income taxes, of sales of city parks, and sales of golf courses, has redirected attention, however, and now
there are rumblings about "How did we get into this mess?" and "Isn't there some legal recourse against that so-called Finance Committee
which messed up the water fund/general fund balance?" In between are
questions like, "If they are talking about dedicated millage for 'essential
services,' doesn't that mean that we are currently paying for 'unessential'
services?" Irritation or resentment is intense enough that presumed members
of that now-dissolved Finance Committee are being openly named and discussed: Cowan, Eva,
Kondek, Doyle, respectively Royal Oak's former Mayor, Finance Director,
Treasurer, and City Manager.
The first two of several budget meetings have
been held, and the real decision-making process is just beginning. Three important points
have emerged so far:
-
First, any long-range decisions -- like enacting
a city income tax or selling a golf course -- will be impossible to implement by
the June 30 deadline for the next budget, so there is going to have to be some
drawing down of non-general funds.
-
Second, some questions need to be
asked, some proposals have to be offered, as part of indispensable fact-finding, not because the questioner hopes to
take the implied specific action.
-
Third, by asking department heads
detailed though sometimes trivial questions the commissioners are adding to
their knowledge about city operations.
-
And, all this must be done in public meetings.
Although several readers have told me that
they have contacted city officials about this or that budget matter, VersagiVoice has
not yet identified any focused support for or opposition to individual commissioners or other officials
or to their proposals. Let's hope that residents are wisely avoiding early
nit-picking and are willing to give our elected and appointed city officials the
time and mental space they need to address these complex issues. -- FJV
26 May 05
|
Related Links
Budget Talk
Dale
Carnegie Sandwich:
Dear Sir, You cur . . .
Deny a
lot split, get sued
On
Royal Oak, good fences do not good neighbors make.
Schools matter more
than city government?
Downtown Development
Authority news
Transparency in
Government
Boards
& Committees
Civics 101
Citizens who seek transparency
in government owe it to public officials, elected or appointed, to pay
attention.
Local Government at its
best
|