Government by the Numbers: How About 1364.02 ?

Oct. 16, 2015

Is the system of checks and balances still working in Traverse City government?

Two weeks ago, without getting answers to basic questions about the Pine Street development plan, the Planning Commission voted to schedule it for a formal public hearing. Some in the audience hooted.

Commissioners responded, “We are bound by the rules.” It sounded as if some Commissioners wanted to vote no but felt they couldn’t because a rule required them to vote yes.

It might be time to review City government’s effectiveness. Traverse City has experienced a series of gaffs and catastrophes: 1) A $360,000 splash pad sprays sewage on kids; 2) A remodeled city marina electrocutes a swimmer; 3) A multimillion dollar waste water plant collapses months after completion; 4) An $8 million “pier to nowhere” is announced but dies of derision; 5) The city approves a subdivision hook-up to a township’s services — without asking the township; 6) A bizarre, $5 million “whitewater park” is proposed below Union Street Dam.

What caused these failures? Do City departmental staff lack competency? Do Commissioners lack leadership skills?

What I saw at the Planning Commission might provide the answer. It appeared Commissioners rubber-stamped a City staff decision. Commissioners didn’t seem to have, or at least understand, the authority to use their own, independent judgment.

It made me wonder if new Commissioners are trained and, if so, if they are trained to lead or to follow, so I asked several community leaders: “What training does a Planning Commissioner get?” The answer I got varied from “none” to “there’s some voluntary training they can do if they want.”

What I saw was a Planning Commission faced with a question they thought they could only vote yes on. Commissioners themselves raised serious questions about the development that weren’t answered. There wasn’t a final drawing; wasn’t a model; there wasn’t a fire truck access detail.

There was a concept for “new apartments” but no details; there was a representation of an access plan, but no details; a claim that firefighting access will be “worked out,” but no details. Clearly the Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) wasn’t ready for prime time, but the developer’s request for a public hearing was granted because the Commissioners said they were “bound by the rules.”

There was no possible way to vote no, so why did they vote? Doesn’t a vote indicate there’s a choice? It seemed like someone was telling them they had to vote, but they had no choice except yes. It was, of course, unanimous.

So now, even without the full plan, there’s a public hearing on Nov. 3. How can the public intelligently participate without the facts? How does the public prepare for such a public hearing? How can anyone — Commissioners and public alike — decide what to do when basic questions remain? Or will those questions be given to staff privately?

Is the idea to have a real public hearing, or just to move the Pine Street SLUP through the system as quickly as possible? I believe the latter.

The way that Planning Commission meeting was run felt colonial. The developer plunked his computer on the lectern, clicked through a PowerPoint, got a pat on the back, “Thanks for coming…” and deferred answers to some unspecified future time. City residents — who pay taxes, pay the salaries of City staff — sat for 1–2 hours watching the developer’s dogand-pony show; then they were told to stand in line; then they were shushed after speaking for three minutes. They had no table, no slide show, no PowerPoint.

This felt like government of, by, and for the developers. Government by the numbers. Here’s a real number: 1364.02.

That is the numbered section of the Zoning Ordinance that requires a development to fit the character of the City: “Each application for a special land use … shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and compatible in appearance with the intended character of vicinity.”

The Pine Street developer has no right to an SLUP until it satisfies that number — 1364.02.

I have attended every public hearing on the project and I have yet to hear a Commissioner take the number 1364.02 seriously. Commissioners act as though residents are wasting time arguing that the Pine Street project isn’t “compatible” or “harmonious.”

Clearly the project isn’t a fit for the downtown. Pine Street is to downtown TC as Meijer’s is to the farmers market. Nice produce, wrong place.

Developers cast the dispute as a fight between “affordable housing” and elite City residents. That is unfair to new and old residents who have made TC what it is: Safe, neighborly, walkable, tree-lined, human-scaled, local, foodie and winey. There are plenty of places inside TC where people will agree to this project, but this cramped little lot on Pine Street is not the place.

This development is a test of City government’s credibility. Strong opponents are pulling in opposite directions. The community’s fabric is stressed. Fairness is the fabric and respect is the thread that binds the seam. The hooting inside Commission chambers was the sound of fabric tearing.

City government should take the recent failures and this new controversy as a moment to ask itself: “Are we well trained? Is each component of our government fulfilling its independent role? Staff advises, Commissioners decide; but are we following that principle, or have we slid into a rubberstamp, government-by-numbers process?”

Some Commissioners don’t appear to recognize the number 1364.02. I think that number is going to shape Traverse City government in the near-term elections and shape it further in a mid-term referendum.

Grant Parsons is a Traverse City native and a trial attorney with a keen interest in local government. He is also involved in a referendum petition effort to ban Traverse City buildings taller than 60 feet.