Letters 2/15/07

Feb. 14, 2007

Aid to the Big Three
I read an article recently about the Big Three auto makers asking Washington for aid, and that the politicians were very cool to the idea.
Well, I think we should give them aid.
First, because we have had seven major increases in the price of crude oil during the last 50 years and they “couldn’t see it coming“ ($3 gasoline), we should give them a corneal transplant to improve their vision.
Second, because they have been so supportive of fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions legislation, we should give them a cranial implant.
Maybe with some brains they would be able to understand what has happened, what is happening, and what is going to happen.

Richard R. Riker • Mackinaw City

Pathfinder finds a way
As a parent of an Interlochen Pathfinder student, I wanted to write to say that I was filled with immense hope and excitement last week.
After Interlochen Arts Academy announced that it would sever its relationship with Pathfinder, a group of parents, alumnae and staff met the very next day.
That group unanimously decided that Interlochen’s decision does not mean that Pathfinder will close. It is now open, and the plan is to keep the school open in September. Even more than that, the group is working to ensure the school’s long-term viability so that the school can be more accessible to more people.
Although it’s premature to discuss the details, I just wanted to say that this group has already marshaled excellent leadership, enthusiastic volunteers, and strong backing. I look forward to keeping Pathfinder open, thriving, and, really, just a great place to learn.
Pathfinder lives. A school this good is very hard to kill.

Rochelle Rollenhagen • Bear Lake

Corporate tax dodge?
Kenneth Braun’s opinion that Michigan would be best served by not replacing the single business tax is based on the findings of the Tax Foundation (re: “From Worst to First,“ 2/1).
This foundation cited Oregon’s low corporate taxes as the primary reason for a healthy economy there. Oregon’s Center for Public Policy readily disagrees: “The Tax Foundation’s misguided approach – equating low taxes with a better business tax climate and ignoring the quantity and quality of public services provided by the states – is not supported by research.”
Mr. Baum and the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy think that we would not have lost so many jobs in Michigan if we hadn’t had the Single Business Tax the past several years. Oh really? Do you think the collapse of the automotive industry in Michigan would have been prevented by the lack of said tax? Would Phizer not have let go of 2000-plus employees if we didn’t have a Single Business Tax?
This fallacy put aside, what really is the agenda of the Mackinac Center?

Chris McElroy • Ann Arbor

The Jail Ministry
I have just read the interview about Jamie and Bob Hall’s Forgotten Man Ministry (1/3). I totally agree with what they are doing. And what they do for the families of the inmates, especially the children! That is awesome! Sometimes people do not have the time for the least of these.
I am not sure if I agree with them about the lack of a father in the home, even though they have more experience through the jail ministry. I, too, am a single mom. I have been for most of my son’s life. When he was eight or nine we sought counseling for communication. It was because he voiced his inability to share why he was angry. It has really helped a great deal over the years of his life and mine as well. I believe communication is key in every relationship from family on through to the different areas of our lives. It is valuable to everyone to know how to communicate.
I believe that just like you communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others, communication has a ripple affect on those who are touched by it. And learn from it.

Sandra Lee Maginity • Benzonia

Northport‘s Mega-Sewer
Dr. Chris Grobbel, Grobbel Environmental and Planning Associates, on January 11, representing the Leelanau Forum, submitted to the DEQ his expert findings on the Northport proposed waste water treatment system.
His comments challenge the mega “McSewer” system proposed by the Fleis Vandenbrink firm. The Michigan Land Use Institute and Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council also addressed the scope of the project, questioning the need for such a behemoth system.
According to the Grobbel report, the Fleis Vandenbrink ‘Needs Study’ is flawed, and prudent and feasible alternatives were not adequately considered. The scope of the proposed sewer is excessive and costly. The discharge of the effluent into the ground near the Northport Creek may threaten the Mill Pond and the freshwater stream. The scope of the Special Assessment District needs review.
The Forum supports Dr. Grobbel’s recommendations to reanalyze the use of more appropriate decentralized systems, initiating a septic system inspection program and perhaps modeling a regional system if needs require it, after the New Neighborhood in Empire.
The Michigan State Revolving Fund, now being tapped for the mega-sewer, offers opportunities for alternative systems. Bigger is not better. Northport does not have to underwrite a sewer system for 400 soon-to-be-built Timbershore residences, nor the Highlands Retirement Campus (Highlands early on advertised their project was NOT sewer dependent).
The citizens of Northport and Leelanau Township should not be forced into paying for an oversized community waste water treatment system, when smart designed, efficient and less costly systems, based on a rigorous needs study are available.

Barbara Gilmore Weber
The Leelanau Forum • Northport

Trial Lawyers‘ Agenda
Anne Stanton’s interview of Jesse Green in the first of her “Extreme Court?” (1/18) articles amply demonstrates why trial attorneys cannot be trusted. One lie destroys all your credibility and Mr. Green’s is gone. Regretfully, trial lawyers in the name of advocacy are continually bending the truth, telling half truths and, at times, bald-face lies. All that, in the quest to win at any cost.
The fact is that the Michigan Supreme Court has not ruled in the Apsey case. They have not even granted leave to appeal. They have heard arguments as to whether to consider the case, but have not even come close to ruling on it.
Mr. Green and all the other “advocates” who call the case outrageous miss the point. Lawyers are supposed to know the law. They are experts in process. They are supposed to know all the procedures and all the rules to maintain their cases in court. Whether we like it or not, truth is a rare consideration in our justice system. Process is everything.
The lawyers in Apsey, who failed to follow the process, were plainly professionally negligent.
Strip away the veneer of high minded legal principles, and what we find is that Mr. Green and all the other trial lawyers are so opposed to the lower court’s Apsey ruling because they will then be at risk for legal malpractice suits. They will go to all lengths to shield themselves from their own negligence so they can pursue the legal blackmail that our roulette wheel of medical malpractice has become.
I can’t wait to hear Mr. Green’s “what is ‘is’“ evasion of his statements.
I’m a Democrat and it’s about time we hold the officers of our courts to the highest standard of truth telling. Whether it’s the President or a trial lawyer, it time to tell the truth, the whole and nothing but the truth.

Bob Johnson • Sackets Harbor, NY

A response from Jesse Green:
We all know that the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) does not hold trials or review facts.
The MSC is instead tasked with the job of reviewing Michigan laws (passed by the Legislature) and opinions (issued by our courts).
If a law or legal interpretation is found to be in conflict with another legal interpretation (say one Court of Appeals panel says “X,” and another says “Y”) it is not just the option but the responsibility of the MSC to clear that up as soon as is possible. The same responsibility is in play if a Legislature or lower court creates an unconstitutional law. Or one that is impossible to follow.
Apsey was a strange and controversial decision -- despite Representative Elsenheimer’s optimistic description -- that overturned years of well-established precedent. Apsey was based on a long-dormant and critically outdated statute from the 1800s that not only changed the law, but rendered it impossible to follow and arguably unconstitutional (since it requires that one do things that are unlawful).
So, the rather peculiar decision of the Court of Appeals panel to search out this dormant and outdated statute, to overrule long-standing and well-established law, and to create a brand new, cumbersome, and impossible requirement created a situation that required the Michigan Supreme Court to rule on the issue. That is their job.
In the arcane world of judicial procedure, if the Supreme Court does not change a strange a problematic decision such as Apsey after the extended delay they have created, they have for all practical purposes approved it. They are allowing it to continue. They are refusing to stop it.
That is how things work with these appellate courts. Rarely are things clear. Usually everything is a matter of arcane rules of procedure. Especially when the courts are trying to hide things.