One could come away from this meeting thinking the Sakwa development is already dead, but given the confusing actions and non-actions of CITCOM and the Administration, that's not certain.

About the Grand Sakwa Proposal
A Conversation with Commissioner Chuck Semchena 

Quickly it became obvious that Semchena considers the debate about the development, or not, of the Coolidge-Thirteen Mile area provides a case-study in government operations and of the behavior of elected and appointed officials.* 

I wanted to talk about timelines, substance, and motivations. Chuck, coming with a folder containing memos and minutes, was ready to talk about timelines, substance, and motivations. To use Bill O’Reilly’s term -- Semchena spoke pithily, to-the-point, about the Grand Sakwa issue and the city’s financial crisis. Semchena maintains that both issues are intertwined and need to be considered at the same time. 

We went immediately to timelines. “How can anyone say we are moving too fast? We received our first memo, describing a preliminary footprint, in May. We’ve had four months of closed sessions.” He maintains that one closed session would have been enough and that there was no need to keep appropriate information from the public. He said that the Administration “dawdled.” 

There is a time factor in the discussion of substance, too. Watchers came away from that 06 October CITCOM meeting with the impression that some commissioners were unaware that the developer had already proposed a purchase price (Three non-commission sources have told me that two tentative purchase agreements had been submitted by Grand Sakwa in the months before the 06 October meeting. – FJV) “There were preliminary negotiations during the summer,” including input provided by City Manager Tom Hoover and City Attorney Dave Gillam. "Updates were provided to the commission on a regular basis."

The truth could not be determined by anyone who only listened to Commissioner Ginotti`s comments at this meeting or who read the city manager's comments in the newspapers, Semchena says.

During those negotiations, he maintains, really substantive matters were discussed, like the appropriateness, or not, of seeking other bids for the purchase of the city property. “Grand Sakwa owns the lease on the property. In legal terms, that is now ‘encumbered property’ on which no other bids can be sought.” About the $2.1 million offer he says, “Consider the value of other proposed Grand Sakwa actions, like paying the cost of all environmental cleanup of this old landfill, of relocating the recreational facilities, of providing the environmentally friendly water hole on the golf course, which is consistent with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) because it provides a public benefit.” Chuck describes a PUD as “zoning by contract.”  The final contract is not entered until the end of the PUD process that includes several public hearings designed to gather public input. This usually takes several months. If the developer does not address all issues raised, the city can decide to stop the project.

“It is unfortunate that the questions raised by many concerned citizens will never be answered. It is apparent that this project has been killed by delays and that the PUD process and public hearings will not occur. We will never have the chance to see if the concerns can be resolved. If they were resolved, the city would have the benefit of the purchase price, tax revenue, and public benefit improvements. Several of us on the commission had proposed that the sale proceeds be endowed and use the earnings to continue the funding of recreational programs and programs at the senior center. Currently, all of these programs are at risk due to the financial crisis”. 

Turning to the motivation for why some of his colleagues are slowing down or attempting to kill “this substantial buildup of the city’s taxable base,” Semchena suggests two possibilities, which may be interrelated: First, the intention eventually to put a millage on the ballot.” We must remember that at a recent special city commission meeting, Ginotti authored an initiative that requires the city administration to size a millage proposal. The millage proposal is scheduled to be presented at the December 1st City commission meeting. Second, several City Commissioners may be considering running for Mayor in 2009. It is obvious that Commissioner Ginotti has already begun his campaign from the Commission table”. The interrelation, as Chuck sees it, is that “In order to avoid accountability, Ginotti needs to postpone placing a millage on the ballot until after the November 2009 municipal election.” 

Will the overall Grand Sakwa project be approved?
"Building our tax base is important to the future survival of the city. Recently, a Planning Commission meeting was canceled because no new applications for projects were submitted to the city. Economic activity levels are at an all time low. Oakland County estimates that Property values are decreasing at an estimated 11% in the next 2 years. The Grand Sakwa project may have been the only viable proposal that would have significantly increased our tax base in the near future. I believe that the project is now dead due to the delays in providing any legitimate response to the developer. 

"Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the only remaining remedy for the City’s financial crisis that is currently on the table is Ginotti`s initiative to size the millage increase.** As Ginotti stated at the September 13th special Commission meeting when urging his fellow commissioners to support his initiative 'Its time to stop sitting on your thumbs.' It will now be interesting to see if the same urgency is emphasized when the millage numbers are presented in December. Or will Ginotti attempt to avoid accountability or delay a millage until after the next municipal election with the same vigor and misinformation he used to delay the Grand Sakwa proposal?" -- 29 Oct 08