• is pro-business and uncaring about residents and neighborhoods
• is pro-resident and hostile toward business and developers
• is pro-developer and indifferent to small businesses
• pretends to listen to taxpayers, then does what it always intended to do
• doesn't know what it is doing
• knows exactly what it is doing and goes sneakily about doing it
• is arbitrary and unreasonable about dotting the i's and crossing the t's
• caters to the wishes of favored residents and favored businesses
• holds grudges and forever after hounds -- or, worse, chooses to ignore -- those who have displeased this or that official

Every once in a while, one hears actual praise or at least grudging respect for the city commission or a commissioner, for a department or a department head. 

Most of those negative perceptions come from individuals who have had a plea rejected or from companies which have had a variance denied. Many of them can't decide whether they have been listened to and disagreed with or have not really been listened to. Even civic activists who may not have had an actual encounter with city government have contrasting  impressions; I have been in many discussions with men and women of good will who are surprised to hear a fellow-activist maintain that Royal Oak government is pro- or anti- this or that -- the mistaken assumption being that everyone who supports a specific community project is also of the same mind about civic or political affairs.

I grade city hall B-plus for its handling of the Holiday Market matter and C-plus for its Washington Avenue performance. 

Re Holiday Market: The commission voted 7-0 to approve the request to expand the building and to restructure access, parking, and egress of the four to seven semi-trailers which serve the market each day. [See] Currently, semis park next to the market, across from the condos on East Parent. The vehicles then unload at the rear of the market and exit onto Kenilworth where they turn west to reach Main Street.

To a disinterested -- but not uninterested -- observer, it was obvious that the city had taken sufficient time to listen to proponents and opponents of the proposed modifications and that the plan ultimately submitted to the commission was put forth after several alternatives had been considered. The commission heard from the opponents -- both publicly and privately -- and the opponents properly took another opportunity to present their well-organized plea during Public Comment. That plea was marred slightly by the exaggerated claim that people bought homes on the street in large part because of a "No Trucks Allowed" sign. In truth, that sign prohibits only "through" trucks.

And emotional support for the opponents was diminished somewhat by the complaint -- necessarily considered petty -- that market employees smoke outside the market's front entrance.

Throughout that commission meeting, Mayor Jim Ellison and Planning Director Tim Thwing (also serving as Acting City Manager) performed admirably as the opponents made their comments and asked their questions, and as several commissioners did what they could to assure themselves that the plan presented for approval had not been rushed through. Even given the suspicion that a couple of the commissioners were posturing, every objection was heard before the 7-0 vote of approval.

In contrast, two members of the Zoning Board of Appeals voted against Holiday Market, after vigorous public comment.

Hence, the B-plus.

Even rejecting suggestions of incompetence, the Washington Avenue closing wasn't handled nearly as well as the Holiday Market matter.

One can understand that with scores of other things to do, the Planning and Engineering Departments could unintentionally overlook that their proposed 4-month street-closing to install a larger water main would interfere with annual major events like the Clay & Glass Art shindig and the Saint Patrick's Day parade. So City Engineer Elden Danielson was guilty of a faulty memory, not of conniving, when he said the construction schedule would not interfere with those events..

The 4-month closing, though, was/is preceded by a 4-day closing to permit the erection of a construction crane at Fifth and Washington. (There will be another 4-day closing when the erected crane is dismantled after the multi-story building is completed.) 

It is arguable whether the city provided sufficient notice to the businesses which will be affected by the closings. Even so, how many lanes of the affected Washington blocks would remain open became a confused issue, and Planning Director Thwing was off-his-game when he back-pedaled about the closed lanes and about the proposed 4-month shutdown and about the number of hours that water might be shut off.

Take the 4-month closing. Before the debate became public, three construction-savvy individuals -- contractors and a civil engineer -- told me, "There's no way in hell that water main job should take four months." But four months was repeatedly mentioned in official documents -- March 1 to June 2 or June 30, depending on which document. It was disingenuous for Thwing -- after the fact -- to say the March 1 to June 30 time frame was simply to give the contractor "wiggle room," as reported in the Daily Tribune.

The revised schedule is April 1 to May 17.

The documents spoke of "up to four hours" of water shutoff and one could easily infer the water might be shut off several times. Thwing now offers, "The water shutoffs may be just a single time and it could take as little as five to 10 minutes. The longest it will take is four hours."

Unkind observers suggest Thwing -- who is simultaneously highly respected and much resented -- is "just covering his butt."

Hence, the C-plus.

All that said, the city government operated openly and behaved ethically, both in the Holiday Market instance and about the Washington closings. One might nit-pick the way elected and appointed officials dealt with the Hannas, the Violantes, the condo owners, the homeowners, the merchants -- but one could also nit-pick the affected parties.

What we saw was mostly transparent government, with humanly unavoidable but not improper backstage communication among some of the participants. 

Good show. --- FJV 15 February 2006

The suspicious weren't convinced
The phrase "backstage communication" in the penultimate paragraph, above, raised hackles among those who maintain that every conversation between elected and appointed officials and developers or business owners must be public, not private. That's physically impossible, of course, and it is interesting that similar concern in not expressed about backstage conversations in which residents are one of the parties.