The Signs Of “PROP 3”

Oct. 14, 2016

There were many signs. I’m not talking about yard signs; I’m talking about signs of opposition that started 18 months ago, when city hall joined forces with real estate developers to promote a “tall buildings” project at Pine and Front in Traverse City.

If anyone was surprised by the public opposition, it can only be because they haven’t lived in Traverse City for the last 30 years. Residents have fought hard to preserve TC’s unique small-town character. When offered the alleged benefits of large developments, city voters have voted “small” every time. They adopted a zoning code that prohibits buildings over 60 feet, except in special circumstances. In 1986, they voted down the seven-story Bayview Mall proposal on property where the farmers market now stands. During the 70s and 80s, voters refused to widen part of Front Street to five lanes, and voted money to demolish bayfront buildings. In 2006, they voted 2,800 to 1,100 against bonding the Federated project.

So, in 2015, when developers showed up with another tax-subsidized tall buildings proposal, what did city hall expect? Public concern was immediate and loud (disclosure: I was conspicuously involved).

At that moment, city hall had to define its relationship with residents. Would it collaborate or dictate? The signs are clear that city hall unwisely chose to dictate.

(Sign) Political gamesmanship: In August, 2015, Commissioners indicated they would vote 4-3 against the tall buildings Special Land Use Permit (SLUP). The developers slickly withdrew the SLUP application; then two months later, when new commissioners were elected, re-submitted it.

(Sign) Governmental hustle: Did the newlyelected Commission try to dispel the appearance of “Commission shopping?” No. City hall treated concerned residents like outsiders and approved the complex SLUP little more than a month after taking office, leaving unanswered questions about tax subsidies, infrastructure costs, and environmental impact.

(Sign) Legal reversal: Philip E. Rodgers, Jr., who is recognized as one of Michigan’s finest judges, reviewed the SLUP and threw it out on legal grounds. “In approving this Special Land Use Permit the City Commission has either been hopelessly naive and uninformed with respect to the source and use of TIF and Brownfield monies or less than candid with the general public.”

(Sign) City versus taxpayers: When taxpayers petitioned for a vote, city hall gave them an invalid petition form, then challenged them for using the form.

(Sign) Downtown Development Authority (DDA) violated its Mission Statement: “Protect downtown’s small town character. Our historic buildings, pedestrian scale, tree-lined streets, and special natural and cultural amenities make us unique. No glass towers, widened streets, or ugly contemporary looking parking decks are planned.” DDA supported millions in tax incentives for glass-and-steel towers.

(Sign) Tax subsidies: City hall approved a plan based on millions in tax subsidies, and agreed to pay infrastructure expenses without even calculating the cost.

(Sign) General fund diversion: City hall backed a property tax rate “freeze and capture” for more than 20 years that will divert about $200,000 annually.

(Sign) Environmental impact: City hall reinterpreted river setback rules and allowed a ten-foot setback from an imaginary “dockline” in the water; it ignored potential risks from contaminated soil and dust during construction.

(Sign) Affordable housing: City hall touted “affordable housing,” but tall buildings would obliterate sunrise, sunset, airflow, and views of next-door residents in Riverview Terrace.

(Sign) Planning violation: Traverse City’s Master Plan is sub-titled “A Community of Neighborhoods and the Relationships They Foster”. It states, “… the Plan focuses on the level of intensity … places high priority on services developed in scale and proportion with each neighborhood. Intensity, then, is synonymous with proportion and scale.” This tall buildings project would dwarf West Front and dominate historic Central Neighborhood.

(Sign) Governmental intransigence: Judge Rodgers offered a simple suggestion: the city should reconsider the SLUP, fairly analyze the facts, explain the results. Did the city do it? No.

All the signs point to a central truth: City hall lacks the capability to resolve the tall buildings issue. It can’t handle the fine points of tax fairness, neighbor rights, aesthetic character, the environment, growth and planning.

Instead of collaborating with residents, city hall spackled over all questions with a “one answer fits all” New Urbanist policy, tacked a veneer of “affordable housing” over luxury condos, and declared it a done deal.

City hall did not decide the tall buildings project based on city zoning. It adopted New Urbanist “dense downtowns” policy. It decided taxpayers should pay millions, and cranked up a PR campaign.

The adoption of New Urbanism, in place of traditional zoning, represents an unprecedented change in city policy. It’s an end-run around zoning regulations. Most importantly, New Urbanism was never voted on by residents.

No doubt, some city hall functionary read a book – or attended a taxpayer-funded junket – and listened to some pinhead from a large metropolitan area pitch a doctoral thesis version of snake oil.

New Urbanism is not and never has been city policy. That’s why 1,200 citizens signed the Prop 3 petition to vote on whether or not tax subsidies and New Urbanism’s “downtown densification” will replace traditional zoning.

If approved by a “Yes” vote, Prop 3 will require a vote on any tall buildings development over 60 feet high. If Prop 3 is approved, every developer, resident, and commissioner will know there is one smart, simple rule: Fairly analyze the costs and benefits of a tall buildings proposal or risk the consequences of the people’s vote.

Grant Parsons is a Traverse City native and a trial attorney with a keen interest in local government.