|
|
||
|
|
Stormy Weather: 2009 Saginaw City Council Candidate Forum
(Note to readers: A City Council candidate forum will air on Charter Cable Channel 15, starting at 6 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 19. The sponsor is the Saginaw County League of Women Voters. Meanwhile, because of space limitations, Review Magazine’s full forum is online at review-mag.com. What follows is a sampling.) By Mike Thompson Saginaw’s City Council will either change a little bit, or not at all in the election on Nov. 3. There are a record-low six candidates for four positions. There are five incumbents, in effect, because Dennis Browning aims to return after resigning in May 2005 to protest council disharmony at the time. To return to office, Browning would have to defeat either Larry Coulouris, Greg Branch, Andrew Wendt or Bill Scharffe. The only true challenger to the council ‘establishment’, created starting in 2005, is 19-year-old Armando Falcon, whom stands independent of conventional council postures Saginaw’s ballot will also contain a proposal to revoke the 1979 property “tax cap” limitation. Council members have pledged to actually reduce property taxes, by replacing the trash millage with a higher annual user fee. In the process, the local millage tax cap would be replaced by the far higher state limit of 20 mills. Current council members say they would keep the levy in the range of 11 mills, but of course they cannot control the long-term outcome should future councils opt to raise it. Nor do they address the repeal of other ancillary fees and levees that have reached into citizens’ wallets over the years that the tax cap has been in effect such as the city income tax hike, the annual business license fee, and the pubic safety millage. Voters will have to decide.
Sensitive Waters to Navigate Readers, please take note: In the process of preparing this forum, I worked with Review Publisher Robert Martin. Because of Bob’s involvement in the former Saginaw City Charter Review Commission, he has definitive opinions that he will express. Bob made the decision that rather involve himself directly in this Council Candidate Forum (something he has tackled personally for 3 decades) it would be best for me to handle and moderate the Forum. The only issue Bob wished to focus upon editorially concerned this latest attempt to lift the Tax Cap. To demonstrate his journalistic integrity up front, Bob gave the candidates the following statement in advance of the six questions presented here: “Review Magazine’s editorial position is in opposition to the City Charter amendment to eliminate the tax cap. We believe that removal of tax limitation could serve as the final death knell to drive businesses and residents out of the city. Furthermore, we believe the dismantling of the original voter-approved Charter Review Commission, of which I was a member, was replaced by former Mayor Cottrell, with complicit support from incumbent council members, by a “yes-yes” group of 10 appointees whom ALL supported removing the tax cap. This contaminated public input into the process. We also still see opportunities to eliminate wasteful spending.”
It seemed to me that council candidates would appreciate Bob’s ethics in making this statement. First, he was forthright so that candidates could respond to his views on this fundamental issue framing the entire race. Second, he is making generous Review Magazine page space available for this forum. Readers of this Forum will observe vituperative wrath directed toward Publisher Martin on the part of councilmen Scharffe and Branch, even as these two candidates exercise their right to the “free print” that is made available in this uniquely free publication. I guess I’m naive, because their level of intensity is stunning to even such an experienced hand as myself. Judge for yourself as you proceed into the candidate forum that follows. Bob’s response to Branch & Scharffe also appears in these pages, framed within his assessment about the campaign to lift the cap. In contrast, candidates Coulouris, Wendt, Browning and Falcon simply addressed the questions without recrimination. My own perspective amid these tense moments is based upon personal experience following City Hall that goes back to 1975. For many of those years, there was high intensity in public participation, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, but at least there was spirit and life in local government. The past four years, in contrast, have been the most quiet that I remember. There is revived recent public participation in neighborhood groups, but virtually none at council meetings. And so, in terms of facing occasional flak, serving on the council never has been easier. This is why I can’t help but ask why some members of the current council seem so defensive and thin-skinned? How would they have fared in 1979 or 1989 or 1999, or even 2004-05, when there was far more scrutiny? Personally, I believe certain council members could lighten up a little, lest they run the risk of appearing petty and vindictive.
With that having been said, here are the candidate bios to begin Review Magazine’s 2009 City Council election forum:
• Andrew Wendt, 35, is a Central Michigan University student pursuing post-graduate studies. He plans to open a real estate business. He has taught at Arthur Hill and Heritage high schools as a band instructor, and he hopes one day to return to teaching. His civic involvement includes membership on the City-County-School Liaison Committee and the Saginaw Voting Precincts Committee, plus he coaches youth sports.
REVIEW: Do you support the Nov. 3 ballot proposal to remove the 1979 property tax caps?
The Review may want to go outside its usual circle and actually talk to Saginaw’s business leadership before proclaiming what Saginaw’s business leaders want. After all, the last time The Review projected its opinion on Saginaw’s voters without actually talking to them, it got beat five to one. (Reference to August 2007 City Charter referendum.)
Also, with our public safety millage, the businesses do not pay taxes on their “personal property,” such as equipment. If we roll the public safety millage into the regular operating millage, then businesses will pay more of their fair share. This will require lifting the tax caps, but the Council has promised to keep the total at around 11 mills. We would have an actual decrease. I also wish to state, as a member of both the original Charter Commission and former Mayor Cottrell’s Charter Advisory Commission, that the original Charter Commission was not “dismantled.” It was intended by statute to function for three years, and it did. I also would not call Mayor Cottrell’s group a “yes-yes” group. A lot of dialogue went into that group. The public was invited to give input, but the public by and large did not show up.
As Review has pointed out, this year’s combined budgets (basic services, public safety, trash pickup) total a whopping $42.8 million, nearly double 1979’s total of $21.7 million. My opponents are offering excuses; in reality they are proving they mismanaged $42.8 million. Aside from that, now is not the time to raise taxes on City residents. We have the highest unemployment rate in the country, and it’s only getting worse. We have home foreclosures mounting, and many youth foregoing college because their families can’t afford it. We have families struggling just to put food on the table, and having to deal with the City Council’s recent decision to raise the water rates ... and now they want to raise City taxes. It’s no wonder we have residents fleeing to live in the townships, where it’s cheaper, and safer. Enough is enough.
SCHARFFE: I will vote to remove the tax and earnings caps. Anyone who chooses NOT to vote to remove these archaic, sadistic, anti-Saginaw, punitive, mean-spirited, singularly divisive, and damaging caps should stay home, pack up, and leave the City of Saginaw NOW, like the people who thought of them have done. To vote against the removal of the caps and still choose to stay in the City would be absolute folly. We're sorry that Mr. Martin was not included in the renewed Charter Committee. Oops, that's not true. We're not sorry. The ridiculous Charter revision brought before the voters when Mr. Martin was on the panel and the resounding 5 to 1 defeat thereof, tells us what that Charter Commission's viewpoint was worth. He'll try to get even now by encouraging a “no” vote! Wrong before, wrong again.
Also, we now will lose another $500,000 in state revenue sharing and our tax base is losing another $300,000 in revenue. It will be impossible for us to sustain any longer with the money we receive now, not without drastic cuts. As a regular citizen in 2005 I probably would have voted “no,” but now because of the past four years in being able to educate myself, to study the books, to look at our budget with the recurring costs, I can tell that Saginaw will have a hard time in the future to pay our bills. We have a zero spending-growth budget, but this will not be a council that will raise the millage right up to 20 mills if voters remove the tax cap. We will not start to spend like drunken sailors. We will be stewards for our citizens.
REVIEW: What are the highlights of your “stump speech” when you are asked the reasons that you desire to serve on the City Council? WENDT: I’m running for re-election because the four years of experience I have gained are important for this city and for the citizens. The City Council at this time can’t afford to have members who are brand new to government, or who have left government and now want to come back because things are better. A good working relationship helps to build our partnerships with nonprofit organizations and the business community, and also helps in terms of gaining federal and state grants and incentives, for projects that range from the Hemlock Semiconductor expansion to the Andersen Splash Park. FALCON: I’m running to be a fresh voice for the City. A fresh voice who will fight for the people, not against them in these trying economic times. I always tell people I’m not running to make friends with the City Council, I’m running to affect the City Council. It’s clear our current Council is stuck in the past with tried and tired ideas. I’m running to bring new, out of the box solutions to solve the issues plaguing our City. I know what it’s like to worry about staying afloat in this economy. I understand what residents are going through. BROWNING: I’d like to get back onto the council because we have a good working council right now. They’re running the city as a business, as it should be run, and I’d like to have that opportunity to be a part of it. My record spoke for itself while I was on the council. When I stepped down in May 2005, there was a nonfunctioning council at the time, and something had to be done to change that council. I feel I did the right thing by bringing attention to this, and obviously voters reaffirmed my actions by not re-electing some of the members, and others stepped down as they should have stepped down. Voters had to make a change, and they did. SCHARFFE: There is no “stump speech” per se. I do intend to highlight the many advancements the City has made over the past two years, such as all seven collective bargaining agreements settled (some had been “open” for over seven years), the significant drop in serious crime, the significant drop in arsons, the balanced budget, a Council that focuses on the serious matters facing the City rather than trying to move personal agendas forward, the repurposing of the Andersen Water Park, etc. An emphasis on the positives — and there are MANY. BRANCH: I ran four years ago because I’ve always felt if you think you can do it better, shut up and do it. I was particularly interested in helping hire the right City Manager, a position that was our life or death. In four years, we’ve turned fiscal services into a well-run machine, increased police ranks, seen declines in violent crime, secured millions of dollars in alternative funding for public safety, blight reduction and recreation, and made significant strides in planning, neighborhood relations and blight reduction. I’m running again because I don’t want us to lose the positive momentum of the last four years. COULOURIS: Previously, I had the privilege of serving on the City Planning Commission and with various groups. My membership on the City Council has expanded my horizons, in seeing the City from a more meaningful position. In doing so during the past four years, I see glimmers of hope springing forth, especially with my involvement with three local neighborhood associations. This gives me a gratifying feeling that all of our combined efforts are leading to tremendous accomplishments. I would continue to serve during the next four years with the same intensity that I have displayed during my first term.
REVIEW: The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, MSHDA, will be cutting funding for city improvements in 2009-2010, meaning that city leaders will be forced to decide whether improvements go on the East Side or the West Side of the river. Where should this funding go if you are forced to make a decision between one or the other? SCHARFFE: The decision will have nothing to do with “east side” or “west side.” This is one city. The money will be allocated where the worst problems exist and the dollars are most needed. The Review's attempt to establish some racial dichotomy here is rather transparent. Shame on you. The money will go where it's needed the most, based on the best recommendations brought to us by experts who know and understand how best to approach neighborhood renewal. BRANCH: That’s an interesting Aristotelian interpretation. “You have two children. Your salary is being reduced, meaning you’ll be forced to decide whether to let one or the other starve to death. Which will it be?” Bob and Mike, you’re both smarter than that. When we know what we have to work with, we’ll put it toward projects that give the biggest bang for the buck. We can’t abandon what’s been started in the Cathedral District zone, nor can we delay work on the next targeted zone – which will likely be on the West Side. BROWNING: I don’t think anybody should be forced to make an East Side/West Side judgment or decision. With this question, I think you’re trying to divide this city. It’s a terrible question. We have to look at the city as a whole, and then decide where we need the funding. In this day and age, we should not be deciding East Side and West Side. We have a whole community that we have to serve. COULOURIS: Ignoring the river, I feel that on both sides there are viable neighborhoods in which blight is starting to creep in. It is happening square block by square block. These are neighborhoods that should be preserved so that blight does not further infest them. Therefore, maintaining neighborhood stability is the key. We must identify areas where we can maintain stability, rather than spending huge amounts of dollars to create large tracts of vacant land that create a second level of blight, where tall grass and weeds grow. WENDT: I do not think of the City of Saginaw as east versus west. We are one entity and one city. The council has decided to focus on three neighborhood revitalization areas: The Covenant area, the Houghton-Jones area and the Cathedral area. We also have positive programs for areas outside of those revitalization zones. We don’t choose one side of the city or the other side of the city. I would suggest that whatever we are forced to cut, we should cut an equal amount in each target area. If it’s 10 percent, for example, then we cut 10 percent across the city. FALCON: Just like everyone else, MSHDA is hurting. It’s no surprise they have to cut funding. I would direct the funding we do receive to the West Side of the City, particularly in the Old Town area, where we have a chance to create a vibrant, prosperous, and safe environment for everyone. We’re already seeing progress there, we have new fine dining, cafés, ice cream parlors, and events - the framework to a revival, and we need to continue to build upon that. We need to spend the money in areas where there is a chance to recruit new employers.
REVIEW: Some critics say the past council with Mayor Ham, Roma Thurin, Dan Soza and Willie Haynes was disorganized, and unable to conduct business in a professional manner. However, by the same token, some critics say this replacement “One Saginaw” City Council since November 2005 has reached the other extreme, with super-short meetings and consensus decisions behind the scenes. What is your response? FALCON: This current “One Saginaw” Council needs a facelift. Their meetings consist of self-appraisal, talk, and no solutions. It’s incredibly rare to see an opposing viewpoint or real debate within the current Council. And that’s not healthy for the City. We need honest debate on the Council, and solutions to come out of every single meeting. It’s now at the point where the time for debate is expired, and desperate action is needed to stem the extreme violence we’re seeing. I’m running to get things in motion, and get things done and put an end to the endless “talking.” SCHARFFE: Super short meetings? Your definition of that is what? Most meetings go at least an hour and a half to two and a half hours. A few are shorter, maybe, but precious few. Where does the quantum leap of journalistic wisdom come from, that presumes some idea of “consensus decisions behind the scenes?” That is an irresponsible accusation at the least and libelous at the worst. Proof? You have none because there is none. Go do your proper homework before tossing out some unfounded crap like that. Journalism 101 is available at most junior colleges. Enroll. Learn. BROWNING: The extreme other way, with the very short meetings, is a concern of mine. We need to have the input of our community as a whole and we have to address those issues. The consensus of decision-making behind the scenes is not appropriate. I was aware of that when I was on the council before, behind the scenes decision-making, and I’ve always had my opinion against that. COULOURIS: Meetings are short because bickering among the City Council members has been eliminated. As for a consensus behind the scenes, that is a totally false premise. There are no clandestine, behind-the-scenes meetings. Proposals brought forward by the city manager are all sound and necessary for the health and welfare of the community at large. WENDT: We have made a commitment to our citizens to present ourselves with some dignity and respect. In terms of being a rubber stamp council, I believe we are not. I know that I am not. I have voted multiple times against specific issues, against the city budget one year and even against our city manager back when he started. We actually disagree a lot, but we talk things out and come to common ground. We now have council members who run fluid meetings, get along, get on phone and talk to one another. Even if we disagree, we are able to have stability and dignity, which was not true in the past. BRANCH: My response is that people who make a living criticizing others will need to find fault no matter what they do. I believe the current Council has conducted itself in a professional manner befitting the board of directors of a $147-million business that’s subject to open meeting laws. And I believe that’s what the voters asked for, resoundingly, four years ago. If our activity has been unsatisfactorily controversial to gratify professional pot-stirrers, that’s just a nice little bonus. That “some” believe this is bad is curious, and perhaps a sign that “some” need to breathe outside their little bubbles.
REVIEW: What steps should the City Council take to promote economic development? COULOURIS: The first thing we must do is to sustain the business and industry that we currently have. Future economic development will escalate as the nation’s economic outlook recovers, coupled with the community providing a viable and comfortable business climate that is safe and healthy. We also must offer a sufficiently qualified workforce if with wish for an entire industry to locate in our community. Saginaw Future has helped attract Hemlock Semiconductor, one of the largest developments in recent memory, which also will create spinoff jobs. WENDT: From a recent Michigan Municipal League conference, I learned much about the process. This council needs to continue a strong relationship with SVSU and Delta, with their nursing programs and other programs, to develop small businesses within the city. We can partner with Saginaw Future, MSHDA and the state’s Cities of Promise to help develop relationships with small businesses. We can work with Michigan Works to emphasize that it’s okay to go back to school and retrain; it is needed for our workforce in a global economic environment, to be competitive. The City Council must lead by example. BRANCH: (1) Do everything we can to make Saginaw an attractive place to live. Today, jobs follow residents, not the other way around. Saginaw’s 20-year pursuit of “more jobs for Saginaw above all else” resulted in a less attractive place to live, and a declining employment base. (2) Help make Saginawians employable. Sometimes it’s not that there aren’t jobs for residents; it’s that residents aren’t qualified for them. That’s one reason why 11,000 non-residents come to work in Saginaw every day. (3) Continue to employ Saginaw Future, Inc., recognized as one of the best local economic development agencies in the Midwest. FALCON: I certainly expect the Council will oppose these ideas of mine because they are so bold; but I know the only way we are going to attract new businesses to the area in this economic climate is to reduce the crime and re-brand the City. We need to begin to “green” the City and recruit new employers in the green, renewable energy sector, and offer steep tax incentives to employers that open up shop here. We already have a skilled workforce in place, in desperate needs of jobs. We need to utilize them, and get Saginaw back to work. BROWNING: We have to make it viable for businesses to function in the City of Saginaw. Right now, it’s very expensive for businesses to do their work in the city. Taxes are expensive and fees are expensive. We have to compare ourselves to the surrounding communities, to make it more economical to do business in the city. We have the economic development people who are working very hard to bring businesses into the city and into the community, and that’s a start. We have to make sure that things don’t stop on a geographic borderline. If we can get economic development and citizens have a place to work, it doesn’t have to be exactly in the city. SCHARFFE: Finally a legitimate question! FIRST, we can see to it that the tax and earnings caps are lifted so we can begin to rebuild a safe environment where businesses can grow and employees in those businesses feel safe coming to work, while at work, and when leaving work! The biggest deterrent to business development in Saginaw is the perception of an unsafe environment. We need to set an attractive table if we invite people to visit our house. Gangs, drugs, arsons, shootings, senseless killings, blighted properties, rutted streets, poorly kept open spaces, etc., do NOT belong on the table! REVIEW: What steps should the City Council take to promote neighborhood improvement? BROWNING: We must continue partnering with the community, the Parishioners on Patrol and the various neighborhood associations. We’re getting more and more Neighborhood Watch groups started, and then the Neighborhood Watch groups are combining to make a larger group. We have more citizens involved during the past few years than I’ve seen in a long time. People are saying that we want to take our community back and make our neighborhoods safe. Chief Cliff is out there and very supportive, and the council needs to be supportive as well. COULOURIS: In addition to neighborhood stabilization, which I addressed in a previous question, we also must maintain involvement with the neighborhood associations.. I have been extremely impressed with the volunteer time that is given by hundreds of neighbors in the various groups across the city, and these groups are growing. For just one example, consider the success of the Arson Watch. This can be hard work and it requires dedication. I proudly am involved with three neighborhood associations in this city. SCHARFFE: The continuing effort to form and support Neighborhood Watch groups is paramount to neighborhood improvement. Only in those areas where a strong neighborhood association and a where a belief in community policing exists, can we expect to see any substantial improvement. The results are already being seen in neighborhoods like Houghton-Jones, the Cathedral District, the Covenant area, Southwest Saginaw, Northmoor, Adams Boulevard, Heritage Square, Northeast Saginaw, and others. Neighborhood improvement starts with the people in the neighborhood making a conscious decision to stand up for their area and fight for improvement. FALCON: You hear our City Council talking a lot about Neighborhood Watch groups, but the members don’t do a whole lot of “doing” themselves, as Council members. We need to meet with our local Neighborhood Watch groups, police, fire, and other community leaders and work TOGETHER. We need to do this on a monthly, if not weekly basis, work together and target specific areas that need improvement, all throughout the City ... blight, overgrown grass, violence, etc. I’d like to establish a “Renew Saginaw” committee, which unifies all the groups listed above so we can communicate and work together to turn Saginaw around. WENDT: We have increased membership in neighborhood groups that basically organize themselves. We are there as council members not to lead a meeting, but to sit in back with notepad and respond. Council members helped with rezoning from R2 to R1 (to prevent more conversions to rental units on the central West Side). We conducted a forum with people who are trying to repay their city taxes, but are being charged a surcharge. We must continue to work with citizens, especially with the high rate of crimes during the past month, the slayings of children, the lost lives. We cannot tolerate domestic terrorism from our fellow man. BRANCH: As a preservationist, this hurts me to say, but we need to lose a lot of housing stock. The bubble of the last few years de-valued our real estate, and neighborhoods don’t improve if the real estate doesn’t appreciate. We need to continue tearing down blighted properties and speed up the process of making them available to adjoining property owners or for new development. More importantly, we need to stabilize buildings before they become unsalvagable and make them viable and attractive. And we need to make the owners of those properties financially responsible. We haven’t in the past; that’s going to change. |
|
|
|
||
|
home |
Out & About |
Dining |
Events |
singles |
classified |
archives |
advertising |
||
BRANCH:
BROWNING:
COULOURIS
FALCON:
WENDT: