March 29, 2024

County Woes And City Votes

Aug. 12, 2016

Things don’t seem to be going that well for Grand Traverse County government.

Its leaders continue the sad journey of trying to solve its budget woes on the backs of current employees. The latest indignity will increase employees’ share of their health insurance costs by more than 300 percent in January. That’s a pretty significant economic hit for deficits they had no part in creating.

And it’s not really clear how removing money from the paychecks of current employees in any way helps solve a $50 million pension shortfall.

County Administrator Tom Menzel says it will put county workers more in line with other public and private entities. (Maybe he should show us those comparables, because the county isn’t exactly famous for overpaying its workers.) And private sector companies often provide a stipend or raises to help offset significant increases in benefit costs.

(Please, let’s not hear from those believing county employees should feel lucky to have any benefits at all because they don’t have any and blah, blah, blah. Lowest common denominator wages and benefits don’t really help anyone.)

Everybody at the county, at least those still working there, will have smaller paychecks. The steady flow of employees leaving should be of more concern than it seems to be, especially since it isn’t likely to slow anytime soon.

The combination of mediocre pay becoming even less, and low morale combined with the relentless negativity coming from county leaders doesn’t much encourage potential new employees either.

The administrator says employees should remember they work for the taxpayers but, of course, they are also taxpayers who don’t really need a budget lecture from someone whose first order of business was getting himself a six-figure assistant.

Then there was the administrator’s bizarre memo telling employees they should refer election and political questions to his office. That’s an especially peculiar directive for the elected County Clerk, for whom elections are part of the job.

A cynic might say it sounded like someone trying to control the flow of election information. Let’s instead assume the administrator forgot that answering questions from county residents is part of what people who work for the taxpayers do.

It seems employees, and county residents, are growing restless. The recent primary elections saw one incumbent board member soundly beaten, another who barely won, and a third who resorted to a misinformation campaign to win. Not a disaster but not exactly a ringing endorsement of the county’s current direction either.

The City of Traverse City, on the other hand, has plenty of money. It must.

When you don’t feel the need to even hold a study session, much less allow bids, for a $2.5 million contract extension, you must be pretty flush.

But Traverse City has something more interesting looming: the referendum on buildings taller than 60 feet. We don’t yet know exactly how the ballot language will be worded — the law requires it be in the form of a question — and the wording can make an enormous difference. Will “yes” mean no tall buildings or will “no” mean no tall buildings?

Commissioner Gary Howe, a tall-buildinghigh-density-new-urbanism advocate is concerned such a restriction would so discourage developers that none will want to build here, and Traverse City’s growth will be hamstrung for generations.

Such a notion presupposes that there are no developers willing to build anything less than 60 feet tall. Looking around at current or proposed developments would indicate there are quite a few building right now within that limit — in fact, all but one.

Still, a majority of commissioners seem obsessed with the idea of putting tall buildings downtown, the part of the city they act like they all represent. We’re even kicking in $5,000 for a study from a company in North Carolina that will no doubt prove the obvious: Big buildings generate more tax revenue than smaller ones.

The actual debate here isn’t really pro-growth vs. no-growth, old vs. young or haves vs, have-nots. There are plenty of newbies and old timers, rich and poor on both sides.

It’s simpler than all that. How tall do we want buildings in Traverse City to be? That’s the debate. The really tall fans can argue economic development and density and the not-so-tall advocates can argue protecting the character of the city.

No one is arguing that there should be no growth — just how tall that growth should be.

Plus, it isn’t a foregone conclusion such restrictions will be approved by the voters or pass legal muster. The governor and attorney general say it will violate state law while the courts have decided otherwise more than once.

Either way, we’ll find out what Traverse City voters prefer come November. And that’s a good thing.

Trending

Mysterious Michigan Reads

We can’t think of a better way to spend spring break than with a great book. Northern Express asked local bookseller... Read More >>

Heirloom Recipes With Heritage, History, and Nostalgia

Before we begin to stash our coats and put winter behind us, let us remember what years past have taught us…fake sp... Read More >>

A Floral Family Affair

In the quaint downtown of Elk Rapids sits Golden Hill Farms, a shop where the artistry of floristry meets the rustic charm... Read More >>

A Look at Originalism

O Tempora O Mores! Oh the times, oh the culture. This Latin phrase relates to both the 18th century and our current times.... Read More >>