Sitting in on civic/city meetings -- 1

Occasional Reports from sitting in on city/civic meetings
School/City Liaison Committee Fire Chief White chats with neighborhood leaders	Fighting Bigfoot Police Chief Quisenberry converses with neighborhood leaders	City Engineer Danielson covers everything from sewers to traffic lights City Manager & Public Service head meet with Neighborhood Leaders

LocoMoms continue fight to designate vacant school buildings historic
With a new spokeswoman taking the lead, LocoMoms tried to convince the Historic District Study Committee to "give us six months" by declaring that the committee had chosen to conduct an official study of Longfellow and Whittier elementary schools. Hoping that permissible adaptive use of historically designated school buildings would create a win-win situation for all sides, the spokeswoman cited developments in other cities. This, after the Royal Oak City Commission had previously rejected the Study Committee's first request to conduct such a study. The reference to six months is that the City Commission would issue a moratorium which forbids any demolition or work on the structures being studied. Previous city commissions issued two consecutive moratoria on the Fourth and Main Bank Building, giving the Study Committee a full year to achieve designation.

After a lengthy discussion, during which members of the Study Committee suggested that LocoMoms need to work with the School District first and to come up with potential buyers for the buildings, it was decided that the LocoMoms would return in February to present their case. A stumbling block is that the Historic District Study Committee is on record describing its policy of not attempting to coerce historic designation on an unwilling property owner -- in this case the School District.

In street talk about all this, it has become obvious that the basic issues are in danger of being buried under personal recriminations. Some have questioned [unfairly and unwisely, in my view] the wisdom of appointing to the Study Committee an individual who was actively identified with LocoMoms. . . . Others contend that LocoMoms are less-than-honest in claiming that the 1,200 signatures they gathered earlier demonstrate support for historic designation: "Those people signed hoping to save the schools for the children attending them. Historic designation seems to be an afterthought." [At the Study Committee meeting summarized above, the LocoMoms showed a printout of 178 online "votes" to save the buildings.] . . . Still other express such intense dislike of this or that School Board Trustee or City Commissioner/Mayor that the neutral observer immediately recognizes that focus on the issues has been lost.

All of this comes at a time when residents are distressed to learn of a power struggle among long-time dedicated historic preservationists involved in the publication of a book containing illustrations of some 200 Royal Oak homes and buildings.

Sitting in
Can't save the kids?
At least save the historical buildings!
Taking to a new level their fight to save South End elementary schools, two members of LocoMoms have convinced Royal Oak's Historic District Study Committee (HDSC) to recommend to the city commission that Whittier and Longfellow schools be declared proposed historic districts. If the commission approves, that puts in- place a six-month moratorium during which the school district cannot demolish or otherwise impact at least the exterior of the structures.

Such a moratorium, renewed once, resulted -- against the owner's wishes -- in mandated historic designation of the Fourth and Main Bank Building, the landmark adjacent to the Skylofts Condos. Lasting effects of that historic designation continue to occur. Currently, for example, building code requirements seem to conflict with aesthetic preferences required by historic designation. As this is written, the issue concerning mechanical equipment placed on the building's roof is scheduled for consideration before the Historic District Commission (not the HDSC). See next column.

Temporarily defeated in their attempt to persuade the school district to reverse its decision to demolish the two schools, the LocoMoms are contending that even if they lose the battle to keep South End the schools open, the buildings should be preserved for their architectural historical value, both inside and outside.

Whether publicly owned school property can be forced into historic designation was one factor which arose during the HDSC dialogue between LocoMoms Sharon Ritter and Laura Moore, a couple of supporters, and the committee members. Points of view ranged from "Royal Oak city government is controlled by Developers" . . . through suggestions that the 1,200 people who signed the LocoMoms petition re Whittier are really attempting to prevent construction of 21 homes on the site . . . to "Remember, the school district has lawyers, too" . . . and "I can't believe the school district is so dense as to eliminate all elementaries south of Catalpa." [Once again, the existence of Oakland Elementary, off Lincoln Avenue, seemed to fall under the radar. Meaningfully or not, Oakland is not included on the list of schools or on a map published in the city's Insight magazine.]

Hanging in to the end, Moore's elementary school daughter engaged me in corridor conversation, articulately and with vigorous hand gestures lobbying to save Longfellow. [I sit in on most HDSC meetings, but I am not a member.]

The next step is for the HDSC to ask the city commission to declare the schools are "proposed" historic districts, thus providing at least six months for LocoMoms to continue their efforts to save the schools as schools or at least as historical structures. The committee encouraged Ritter and Moore to have numerous supporters appear if historic designation of Longfellow and Whittier is placed on the commission agenda. -- 14 Sep 06

. . . All of this comes at a time when residents are distressed to learn of a power struggle among long-time dedicated historic preservationists involved in the publication of a book containing illustrations of some 200 Royal Oak homes and buildings.

Sitting in
Mechanical equipment on roof meets code -- but isn't attractive
As stated in the column at left, mandated historic designation has long-lasting effects. The prospective new owner of the Fourth and Main Bank Building is caught in a Catch-22 situation between the city's Code Enforcement decisions and the Historic District Commission's aesthetic preferences. Here's how a meeting to address the controversy went:

Cast of Characters
4 members of the Historic District Commission (HDC) . . . Royal Oak Building Official . . . Attorney for Building Owner . . . Attorney for the Skylofts Owners Association . . . An engineer supporting the Skylofts position . . .The building owner . . . In absentia but much discussed was the city's Mechanical Inspector . . . Planning Director Tim Thwing sat in but did not participate in the meeting. He engaged in after-meeting conversations with all sides.

The Issue
City-mandated changes re already installed roof-mounted mechanical equipment meet code but conflict with original plans which had been approved by the HDC.

The Convoluted Debate
The official complaint was presented as coming from the association representing the Skylofts Co-Owners. Actually, the complaint originated with the owners of a condo whose view of Main Street is partially blocked by the city-approved changes. Asked after the meeting if anyone else had complained, the Building Official said one other person had, but the official gave no name or identification.

Changes in the layout of the developing store/office interior of the building caused the city to demand an expensive and extensive addition of fire/smoke control components to the mechanical equipment. The city approved and granted the permit for the installation of the newly required equipment. Perhaps because of transition confusion caused by the retirement of the former Building Official, the HDC was not notified of the new plans or that the permit had been granted.

The earlier approved plan limited the height of the mechanical equipment to 5 feet. The new equipment is 8, 10, or 12 feet high, apparently depending of who is talking and from where to where the measurements are taken. Two feet of the increased height was forced by the Mechanical Inspector, despite the contractor's making it clear it was not needed for maintenance and service. "It is needed for inspection," said the Building Official.

Somewhere in there is a letter of understanding which includes the 5-ft limitation, between the condo association and the building owner.

Some insist that the association's engineer was shown the revised plans -- which did not specify the greater-than-5-ft height, but which any "qualified engineer" would recognize from the cfm requirements and fan dimensions. The association's engineer, using a manufacturer's catalog, showed the HDC equipment which he contends would meet code while maintaining the 5-ft limit. . . . Someone (my notes don't make clear who) said the recommended equipment would not meet code.

The association's attorney's basic case is that it is "uncontested" that the new plans have not received HDC approval.

The building owner's closing argument was that if the owner is required to make changes to equipment installed after city approved the plans and issued a permit, "The owner shouldn't have to pay for the changes."

The resolution, if it can be called one, was for the building owner to come back to the HDC with a set of revised plans -- apparently other than those already approved by the city and implemented.

Comment
This mess is a perfect example of the problems posed by the city's four historical ordinances. Over the years, two city officials -- one several years retired and one still on staff -- have told me that having "the historic layer on top of normal permitting requirements" is a "pain in the a--."

One HDC member suggested the choice is between health & safety (code requirements) and aesthetic preferences required by historic designation. A second HDC member said such considerations are not the HDC's responsibility. The Building Official gave the understandable bureaucratic answer that both considerations apply. Formally and legally, historic designation controls what can and cannot be done to the exterior of the building. Before this meeting, I had been told that someone on the HDC was raising complaints about what can be seen through the building's windows.

Some history
I was involved years ago in the successful fight to stop mandated historic designation of a residential neighborhood, after learning that the bank building's previous owner had been forced into such a status. A dissident group called Citizens for Property Tights (CPR) suggested that the city rescind its four ordinances which, confusingly, establish the Historic District Commission and the Historic District Study Committee and the Historic Commission. Instead, we recommended that dedicated historical preservationists form voluntary Historical Advisory Council to guide the city and property owners through achieving historic recognition if they desire it. [See]

Now I join the city commission in its "counting paper clips" mindset and repeat that suggestion. Think of the few thousand dollars which can be saved by dissolving all those confusing historical entities! -- 20 Sep 06

**Royal Oak School/City Liaison Committee**
Almost 100 residents attended this meeting, usually attended by a handful. Obviously, there is a constituency for those "LocoMoms" who are working to save, or to create, an elementary school for the South Central area of Royal Oak. Actually, there were two meetings, one during which school officials and city officials explored areas of cooperation and one during which scores of attendees addressed both the school district and city hall concerning the perceived gap in elementary schools in the city's South Central area. There was tension and there were emotions but -- except for a couple of outbursts -- the tone of the second meeting was remarkably restrained. Restrained or not, 90% of the speakers, had they the power, would have voted the school board out of office on the spot -- and, toward that end, there is talk of seeking recall petitions. Below, a summary of the issues, accompanied by impressions about the tone of the interactions.
The Issues Meeting One: School District-City Hall dialogue City Manager Tom Hoover and Police Chief Ted Quisenberry proposed that the school district pay half of the estimated $90,000 cost for a hoped-for School Liaison Officer. Included in the dialogue were: Should the school district's share of the cost be pro-rated, given that the school year is shorter than the calendar year? . . . No, the School Liaison Officer works on school issues throughout the year, not only in the schools but also at youth gatherings and with parents. . . . What input will the school district have about the job description about who is selected for the position? . . . Collective bargaining considerations require that such decisions be made by the Police Chief, who will work closely with the school district. About the fate of Whittier Elementary, the issue about which the 100 residents were attending: Mayor Jim Ellison provided an overview of the multi-year studies and efforts which went into creating the current school consolidation plan. . . . School Board President Christine Hartwig commented that to talk more about the plan would result in "paralysis by analysis." . . . Vice President Gary Briggs agreed that the Whittier decision was a part of a comprehensive consolidation plan intended to serve the entire school district. . . . City officials pointed out that the school board and the city commission are separate entities, both elected by the voters, and that it is not appropriate for the city to tell the school board what to do with school property, referring to the suggestion by the LocoMoms activists of a city/school land swap. At this point Commissioner Mike Andrzejak asked School Superintendent Tom Moline, who was chairing the meeting, to revise the agenda and permit the attendees to comment on the Whittier issue, instead of having to wait until the end of the meeting. Moline agreed. After most of the attendees had made their 3-minute presentations and had left, the school/city officials turned to the the final agenda item, possible cooperation or consolidation of the two separate public access operations, WOAK and WROK. . . . The city described the workings of its station, both fixed and mobile, and the school district explained how exposure to public access begins in elementary school and continues through high school. . . . The two groups agreed to explore possible methods of offsetting costs and, perhaps, joint operation. . . . Hoover reviewed the concern of localities that federal or state franchising of cable television would threaten income from franchise fees. . . . Commissioner Andrzejak commented that since every city in the country will be expressing the same concern, it is likely that any federal or state franchising regulation will take those concerns into consideration. [The issue was also discussed briefly during the 17 July 2006 commission meeting.] At Hoover's suggestion, the school/city liaison committee will begin meeting quarterly. It had been meeting now and then, perhaps twice a year. Meeting Two: Residents have their say Most of the residents who spoke do not accept the official position that voter-approval of the latest school bond was of itself agreement to the closing of Whittier Elementary.. . . The speakers contended that they voted to give the school district the wherewithal to implement the consolidation plan it was considering, but "Had the ballot or the information available made clear that you were planning to close Whittier," this third attempt at a bond would also have been rejected. A handful of speakers, including the Whittier PTA president, support closing Whittier and reported that on a tour of Keller -- to which the Whittier population is being transferred and where the School Administration will relocate -- the teachers and parents were enthused at the prospect. . . . Several speakers contradicted that characterization. About the need for Whittier students to have to be bussed to Keller, the majority of speakers insisted that kids should be able to walk to school. . . . Opposed were those speakers who offered such thoughts as "Only 5% of all Royal Oak students walk to school." and "Kids adjust. I screamed when they closed Parker Elementary, but my children simply accept being bussed." and "Life goes on. Bussing doesn't kill schools." A substantial number of the speakers contend that people are already beginning to sell their houses in the Whittier area. . . . Some suggest that recently-moved-in families are the most disappointed. . . . One man said he built a new home in the Whittier area just because of the school's existence, and he will now move out of Royal Oak. The "money issue" was raised by a handful of speakers, who asked why certain properties are being sold or not being sold. . . . There was objection to having houses built at the former Franklin Elementary site. . . . A couple of speakers expressed disappointment at the school district's apparent lack of interest in the "historical" factor concerning buildings such as Whittier. . . . There was disagreement with whether it would be economically justified to rehab Whittier, to which others suggested, in effect, "build a new Whittier or a new anything, but give us a school in South Central." Downtown-oriented younger residents "want our kids to be able to walk to school." Skepticism was expressed about the school board's argument that the consolidation plan is already being physically implemented and cannot "ethically" be modified. The suggestion that the elected officials, both school and city, be fired came from a man who with quiet anger said, "This is strike two." He said the city commission's failure to adequately address citizen-concern over the I-75 ramp at Lincoln was Strke1 and ignoring South Enders' concerns about a school is Strike 2. One touch of humor: A speaker said that although this was a school issue meeting, he wanted to take advantage of the presence of city officials to complain about deteriorating pavement on his street.	The participants and the tone Meeting One For the most part, the dialogue between the city and school officials was cordially business-like. Essentially, the two separate public entities are looking for ways in which they can appropriately share or reduce operating costs, without compromising their responsibilities to their sometimes at-odds constituents. During the discussion about their public access television work, for example, it became clear that the needs of the school population differ substantially from those of the general population. There was a hot moment when School Board Secretary Kevin McLogan was making his case that the school district shouldn't have to pay half of the cost for any School Liaison Officer who might come on scene. McLogan also wondered why the district should pay any of the costs for someone who would be controlled by the Police Department, seemingly not convinced by any of Chief Quisenberry's replies. McLogan's bulldog persistency began to wander, and Commissioner Terry Drinkwine, himself a bulldog debater who formerly served three years as school liaison officer, bristled a bit and said, in effect, "If you don't want the service, let's move on to something else." Meeting Two The tension began before the meeting began. The school custodian informed the LocoMoms that Board President Christine Hartwig said they had no authority to have sign-up sheets outside the building, that there is a formal permit-seeking procedure which should have been followed. Hearing this, early arrivals characterized the demand as "petty" and asked the custodian to tell the Board President to come out and personally order the LocoMoms to move to the sidewalk. No one showed but, for a handful of people inquisitiveness soured into irritation before they entered the building. School Super Moline did an excellent job of moderating the marathon session. As have so many meeting chairmen, he asked that the groups appoint a few spokespersons to make their case, but found it impracticable to refuse scores of individuals the opportunity to speak. [VersagiVoice, here: City Hall would do well to reduce Public Comment speeches to the 3-minute limit used by the School Board. As intense as was this school-oriented meeting, residents were able to express their thoughts and feelings. Fewer than a handful had to be cut off.] Commissioner Andrzejak received an early round of applause when he arranged for the residents to speak without having to wait for the committee's other agenda items to be completed. Andrzejak also drew praise for quickly helping to defuse some personally-focused anger generated when Secretary McLogan returned from leaving the room for a few minutes. The group had reacted angrily because he and President Hartwig had left together and returned together. That dual departure from the room -- for whatever reason -- was especially unfortunate because Hartwig had already been criticized by one speaker for deliberately displaying disdain, for "rolling her eyes," during the residents' comments, and McLogan had been noticed repeatedly wagging his head vigorously in apparent consternation at what was being said or how it was being said. One elderly man teared up as he looks forward to no longer seeing kids walk by his house to school. . . . Speaking of crying, there were continual wails and proclamations from the many infants present, making it very much like churches used to sound before "bawl-rooms" were created. . . . Half a dozen moms expressed fearful opposition to having elementary school children attending Keller; some fear the busy Campbell area, others worry about who else besides the elementary kids will be in Keller. One woman even expressed a disinclination to exposing her children to adult school administration personnel and visitors to the building. [VersagiVoice: During his comments Briggs had used the words "The game is over," which the residents resentfully interpreted as, "Why are you bothering us and wasting our time when we have already done all the work and have made up our minds." [On their side, the school board shares with all public bodies the need to suffer from input from voters who have come late to the party. Latecomers rebut, "Sure, you approved (whatever) in a meeting which was televised, and the minutes are available, but there really wasn't much public dissemination about what you were doing." [To which other residents respond, "We voters have to be responsible for our own laziness. It's our fault if we don't attend meetings or don't watch them on public access or don't read the papers." [In both some of the public comment and in later corridor conversations, I heard that the School District's website is less than informative and is not user-friendly, especially when compared to the City's website. [Did the LocoMoms come too late to the party? Is the Whittier flap another case of a vocal minority not representing majority opinion, or is it another instance of public officials, feeling they know best, going through the motions of pretending to listen to the public? Both have happened. Stay tuned.] UPDATE: At a subsequent meeting of parents and residents, the decision was made to mount a petition, not for recall, but to convince the School District to establish an elementary school in South Central Royal Oak. The goal is to present 6,000 signatures to the School Board.

Fighting Bigfoot
Neighborhood Building Design subcommittee
Is it possible to develop an objective mathematical formula to replace subjective aesthetic preferences for regulating neighborhood architectural characteristics?

A subcommittee of the Plan Commission is making such an attempt in response to vehement complaints from some residents that the current zoning ordinance is not helpful in restricting or eliminating bigfoot houses -- or, apparently, what those residents consider extreme makeovers -- in existing neighborhoods. Operating more like an ad hoc committee, the group has met several times without public notice or published minutes, although pertinent documents are available on request from the Planning Department. In August 2005, the Planning Department offered five options for the committee's consideration. "There was a lot of discussion . . . however, there wasn't a consensus on the extent and type of regulation that should be presented to the Plan Commission," states a cover memo distributed at the 13 June 2006 meeting which I attended and where the discussion continued.

Concerning the entire effort, a resident-member and a developer-member expressed the extreme positions between which the subcommittee's recommendations, if any, will fall.

According to the cover memo mentioned above, the Planning Department had been asked to do further review to suggest regulations "that would limit the mass of a building while still allowing for development." This meeting's discussion was erratically circular, confused by moving back and forth and around and through: individual residential lots (23,000), streets, neighborhoods, and subdivisions (83). Planning Director Tim Thwing repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get the subcommittee to choose an option so the department can move forward. Instead, they asked for more time to review everything and meet again on July 11.

After hearing all this:
Regulation based on the personal aesthetic preferences of either residents or officials, of course, goes against my libertarian mindset, especially when there is not even a hint that public health or safety is involved.

The discussion called to mind the recent prolonged attempt to devise a Fence Ordinance to which individual objections could not be raised. When the city commission realized that was impossible, the decision was to leave the existing ordinance in-place and to address the inevitable individual problems as they arise.

My extreme libertarian preference would be Option One -- remove architectural language from the existing ordinance. My moderate libertarian preference is to disband the subcommittee and let the Planning Commission continue to work with the existing ordinance. -- FJV: 14 June 2006

Also, a comment regarding the remark from the developer. He doesn't want the city to change anything because he can't build his "family" homes. My question is, in this Michigan economy how can a family afford a $500,000 house? And there are plenty of $400,000 homes for sale in Troy and Rochester on bigger lots. I would like to see the statistics on how many of these new Royal Oak houses have been sold to families with children. And where do they go to school? The two largest homes on my street have children and they go to private schools. --Laura Harrison

Fire Chief White chats with neighborhood leaders
Resuming the series of meetings with neighborhood leaders and residents which he initiated soon after becoming city manager, Tom Hoover introduced Fire Chief Wil White to about a dozen people representing seven neighborhoods. White spoke and answered questions. Then the citizens had at Hoover with a hodge-podge of concerns and suggestions.

Fire Chief White

Don't think "Fire Department."
Think "Fire/Rescue/EMS Company."

That was the core of White's message as he listed and briefly described the "company's" activities:

80-120 structure fires a year, including kitchen fires.
4,500 emergency/medical runs a year: everything from heart attacks to traffic accidents to diabetic comas.
Development of the Fireman Larry Smoke House -- at no cost to the city's General Fund.
Safety City is now housed at the Northwood Shopping Center, so training can be conducted whatever the weather.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) certification of the department -- one effect of which is reducing fire insurance premiums for both residential and commercial properties. (Hoover: "Check with your insurance company.")
Cooperative volunteer work with "the Department of Public Services, Police Department, Secretaries" re New Orleans/Katrina.
Monthly training/reviews re the architectural plans for the Senior high-rises: construction, stairways, configuration, ventilation systems, and the like.

White said that proposed formation of a regional Fire Authority, begun 18 months ago, is coming along much better than hoped. A Michigan statute, apparently, has proved helpful in establishing guidelines for assuring no harm to departments and individuals.

The Fire Chief referred briefly to the previous contentious relationship between the City and the Fire Department, stressing that the new mood is for "communication and cooperation."

White is a lifetime Royal Oak resident ("except for three years in Madison Heights") and a 17-1/2 year firefighter.

Citizens Speak

Citizen: "We need a light at Fifth & Main."

Hoover: "I've just come from a DDA meeting, where they are considering a light at Sixth & Main."

Citizen: "Don't know what's up at Sixth, but we need a light at Fifth & Main."

City Manager Hoover listened, offered suggestions, said he would look into it -- as seemed appropriate when the citizens made their statements. For example, he suggested that it might be necessary to mount a petition-drive to force action on the Fifth & Main complaint. Other citizen input, mostly pleasantly:

Leaves are still piled waist high in front of one neighbor's house.
Kids are riding motor scooters on the sidewalk.
Road/construction work on 13 Mile is causing excessive traffic down [a residential street]. The road patching is terrible, will destroy cars. Hoover: 13 Mile will be torn up all summer for infrastructure work.
Our street joins Woodward at an awkward angle . . . so people turning onto the street swing wide into the wrong lane . . . Drainage is bad and in winter it's a sheet of ice, causing cars turning off Woodward to slide into the wrong lane.
A spokeswoman for Barton Towers residents relayed several complaints seemingly tied to construction of the nearby high-rise condos: small stones in the tap water . . . occasional red tap water . . . vibration-caused ceiling cracks . . . obtrusive lights from the uncompleted parking structure . . . workers start before 7 a.m. . . . standing water . . . nails in the street.
Infestation of yellow "somethings." Hoover speculated they are non-stinging bees, with which he is familiar.

April 2006