This recent bout began in DDA's March meeting. VersagiVoice's report out of that meeting began:

If we were living in the Middle Ages, there would be duels fought between some members of the Downtown Development Authority and some commissioners. That is how tangible the institutional animosity between the DDA and CITCOM was during the Authority's March 2010 meeting.

Within a few days, the DDA held a Special Meeting at which it discussed budget and conducted an orientation for its three new directors.  About the same time, CITCOM counterattacked by adding a proposed amendment to the DDA Ordinance to the commission's agenda for the commission's first meeting in April. I commented that my mixed reaction to that announcement was (1) CITCOM insists on micromanaging everything and would soon be debating "which species of tree should be planted on Fourth Street." (2) "This hopefully is the first step toward ultimately dissolving the Downtown Development Authority."

I concluded, "Let's see what happens Monday."

What happened was a 5-2  vote approving the First Reading of the amendment which I maintain is intended to "emasculate the Downtown Development Authority." And, indeed, there was discussion about the color of bricks used in streetscaping. VersagiVoice's first report out of that CITCOM meeting summarized the basic debating points stressed by each member of the commission: The Five: Andrzejak, Capello, Drinkwine, Poulton, and Semchena. The Two: Ellison and Rasor.

Somehow, the DDA's $300,000 deal with Emagine became the reference point for much of the debate. Jim Rasor has submitted a Guest Column addressing that point. Although I supported the Emagine project from the beginning, I would have voted against the deal were I serving on the DDA.

The tone of CITCOM's deliberations was emotional but subdued. Both the anger and the sadness were expressed quietly.

The sadness first showed during Public Comment. Jim Domanski, newly elected DDA Chair and co-owner of the popular Pronto! restaurant, wondered aloud why the DDA hadn't been notified about CITCOM's intention to place an amendment to the DDA Ordinance on the agenda. His disappointment obvious, Jim used such language as (paraphrased), "All of you know  me . . . We've known each other for 20 years . . . You know where I live, where I work . . . No one called me . . .  I heard not one word."

The DDA Chair said downtown merchants are "scared." He repeated a long-time DDA complaint that CITCOM, now complaining of unacceptable response from DDA, has not responded to the Authority's repeated requests for a joint meeting. He urged CITCOM, "Talk to me. We don't need a line drawn in the sand."

Later in the meeting, Andrzejak, alluding to the DDA's past complaints of not being kept informed about matters affecting downtown, said, in effect, "This is a role reversal."

Also during Public Comment, Vice Chair Bill Harrison showed both disappointment and anger, as he described the financial advantage that the DDA provides to the City and detailed several major transactions and developments over the years. He urged CITCOM , "Do not take flexibility away from the DDA." Harrison suggested that Planning Director Tim Thwing, mandated to serve as the DDA's ceo, is occasionally put into situations where his dual duties pose a conflict-of-interest.

Harrison coined the phrase "Three Horsemen" to describe DDA's cooperation with the City with payments toward (1) Court debt, (2) Parking Structure Debt, and (3) for three police officers dedicated to downtown. His shorthand term was used several times during the formal debate. (The 07 April Royal Oak Review has published an informative review of those payments.)

Commissioner Semchena led the charge against the DDA's independence. Chuck began the attack during consideration of the DDA's return-request for approval of a $170,000 Change Order needed to complete the last phase of a multi-phase streetscaping plan. Leaning forward and scowling much of the time, he spoke quietly as he sought to connect the Emagine decision to that long-budgeted streetscaping cost. Making his case to tie together long-range financial decisions of the Authority and the City, Semchena spoke at great length and with quiet fervor.

As a matter of procedure, Mayor Ellison tried to bring Semchena back to the streetscaping issue, but the commissioner continued to talk for several minutes. I infer that Ellison, aware that the coming vote on the DDA Ordinance would go against his preference, wanted to avoid any suspicion that he was trying to shut down the proponents in advance. I also infer that Semchena is skilled enough in debate procedures to recognize and take advantage of Ellison's hesitation.

About that, I am left wondering why Ellison or Rasor or even the City Attorney (via a whisper in the mayor's ear) did not call Semchena out of order then follow with a suggestion to combine Agenda Items 13 (DDA Streetscaping) and 16 (the DDA Ordinance) into a single, but 2-part motion. That would accommodate Semchena's concern that everything relates to every thing else, yet sharpen the focus of the debate. As it was, it was often difficult for observers to be sure whether some arguments were focused on the ordinance or the streetscaping.

Last week's VersagiVoice report out of this meeting reported the substance of each voter's position. What I've written here adds my interpretation of the flavor of the debate as inferred from tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language.

It is almost certain that there will be two or three opportunities for either side to initiate or respond to legal challenges, as is true about Health Care Reform. However that works out, Royal Oak governance is faced with the possibility that this specific DDA/CITCOM brouhaha will destroy collegial institutional and personal relationships between between CITCOM and the DDA --and between CITCOM and volunteers serving on other city panels.

At this same meeting 05 April 2010 meeting, CITCOM:

• Postponed approving nonprofit status for BD Group, 6-1, Rasor voting No. The group's newness and its interest in seeking permission to conduct gambling events were at issue.

• Unanimously approved a Memo of Understanding with SEMCOG concerning a long-term Access Management Plan for Rochester Road.

• Unanimously approved a formal agreement with the Memorial Day Parade Committee, after adding a clause regarding approved driver's licenses and proof of insurance.

• Approved 3 routine recommendations of the Traffic Committee.

• Approved 3 dates for Budget Meetings: May 10, 12, and 20.

• Approved, 6-1, with Semchena voting No, the DDA's second request for a streetscaping change order.

• Approved 6-0, with Rasor abstaining,, a license to Rasor Law firm which allows landscaping and covering window wells on its property at 321 S Williams.

• Approved the First Reading of the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow farming ("Community and Market Gardens"). There was discussion of existing law which bans farming in a developed community.

• Approved 6-1, with Semchena voting No, the First Reading of a proposed Noise and Vibration amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. There was some legalistic discussion of grandfathering and seasonality (noisy bars in summer).

• Approved 5-2, with Ellison and Rasor voting No, amending the DDA Ordinance to require CITCOM approval of all DDA recommendations.

• Requested Staff to bring forth amendments to the Fence Ordinance requested by Poulton and residents.
  See the tabulation of Split Votes.

Public Comment
In addition to the DDA-related comments mentioned earlier:
§ Resident and business owner Jim Thienel spoke of the need for the city to pay attention to the development of Eleven Mile Road, east and west of Main, where there are 30-some empty storefronts. He has begun an organization called 11 Mile Has It All to address the problem and to work with city hall. About local government, Thienel repeated the often heard complaint that the bureaucracy seems to discourage, rather that encourage, business development. (The 07 April Royal Oak Review has an informative article about this effort.)

§ Resident Pat Franz charged that the city is too accommodating to developers. About the now famous/notorious Emagine Theatre and Bowling Alley, she complained the city seems to be "begging for 1,700 more drinkers on weekends." That led Franz to advise CITCOM to "get a handle on that DDA money."

Emotions are high among those who care, though, making more worrisome the lack of understanding about the financial and procedural dimensions of the debate. The split DDA decision not to seek independent counsel to challenge CITCOM's threat, for example, is read by some as the first step toward dissolving the agency and by others as merely a minor battle in a long war.