William Matt
It is my pledge to always seek justice on behalf of the City of Lansing. As your neighbor, I will work diligently to find responsible solutions to our challenges, and lead with a vision guided by a hope of an ever-better city.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Hunter's Ridge Development
If zoning permits were issued to nice guys, then I'm sure Robb Munger's application for 120 units West of Hunter's Ridge would sail through.
At a hastily called meeting in the neighborhood today, Mr. Munger fielded questions from concerned residents and neighbors calmly. He wants to create a sustainable neighborhood. He spoke about his legacy to his kids, his deep commitment to the environment. He even pointed out that he drives a hybrid.
Alas, the neighbors were skeptical of this out-of-towner, looking to tear down green space and put up units that may not sell, and will certainly increase traffic.
The project, called Copper Bend as Mr. Munger explained, would have condo units from 850 to 1800 square foot, selling for 100K to 130K. Besides, he explained, the development would have 4 little subdivision circles, each with a small park in the middle and walking paths through them. These would be connected and arranged in the shape of a 4-leaf clover of sorts. Much nicer and more orderly than say 250 units in straight rows.
About 25 people were there asking very pointed questions, some getting answers, and some leaving feeling like they did not get an answer. A public hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 1 at the City Council Meeting at 7:00 PM. Mr. Munger stated that if his project was opposed, he would not hesitate to have his lawyers and engineers proceed with a higher density 200 unit project. Nice guy, but still a businessman after all.
I asked what he expected to come from Monday's meeting...if he would pull the current project if anyone showed up in opposition? I told him that there would be no action by council Monday, to approve or delay the project either way. It is simply a public hearing for residents and council, and the matter would go back to committee regardless. I didn't want Mr. Munger to decide Tuesday morning to scrap the existing plans if people show up, and show up they will, to oppose the project. Mr. Munger softened his Monday "my way or the highway" stance, but he did make it clear that he would not be waiting around forever to become a jilted bride. He is willing to make a substantial investment and take a big risk, but some residents took this as a veiled threat. An offer they cannot refuse.
There are several key, key questions that need to be addressed before council should be able to make an informed decision on the zoning.
First of all, the project is a downsizing zoning, again, from an old zoned high density project to a smaller one, but the old zoning is not valid. Or is it? Despite what I have been told, that any rezoning will be required, a second view point is that if the previous zoning is ruled invalid, the site would revert back to the previous zoning amount, which is less than 250, but still more than 120, and is approximately 180 units. This would have been an original zoning from the 70's.
The location of the old, now defunct Hunter's Ridge clubhouse, leads Cmr. Kathie Dunbar and me to speculate that Hunter's Ridge project was originally planned to go all the way back over the 23 acres. Cmr. Dunbar and Cmr. Quinney were also there, to gather information and hear resident concerns.
So the paramount question is what is the legal status of the current zoning for the property? Is it the recent more recent CUP zone for 250 units, is the old zone reverted to if that is invalid at 180 units, or something else entirely requiring council approval for the development? I'm hoping the city attorney will be prepared to address that question Monday.
On a personal level, I have already stated I prefer owner occupied housing. Is a condo owner occupied? I suppose on one level it is, but Mr. Munger could not rule out the chance of a landloard buying a group of condos and then renting them out.
On a professional level, I am concerned about the residents dealing with construction noise, dirt, safety issues, and the future impact on traffic. Hunter's Ridge is a short road with a very residential feel.
I would love to see more owner occupied newer housing units in Lansing. I see the suburban flight into newer housing that is modern, bigger and has more amentities every day. Maybe if some projects like that were built in Lansing, people looking to upgrade would not be forced out of Lansing. But where in Lansing can you find a good sized new home?
Lastly, I urged Mr. Munger to really consider what potential this property has, on the Grand River. Some of the most prestigious and valuable property in the city is on the Grand. It is a finite resource. To put $100,000 condo's on the river seems to me like he is not using the property to it's full potential.
There is a house for sale on Moore's River Drive for nearly a million dollars. Surely 25 acres with Grand River access could be put to better use than 100k condos. Maybe a new neighborhood of 30 owner occupied houses in the $250,000 range would be a more appealing project both to the neighbors and to the residents of Lansing looking to upgrade and stay.
There is no question that Lansing has an excess stock of housing. There is also no question that Lansing housing stock is aging and small. Residents have concerns, and property owners and developers have rights too. I hope we can find a solution that appeals to everyone.
At a hastily called meeting in the neighborhood today, Mr. Munger fielded questions from concerned residents and neighbors calmly. He wants to create a sustainable neighborhood. He spoke about his legacy to his kids, his deep commitment to the environment. He even pointed out that he drives a hybrid.
Alas, the neighbors were skeptical of this out-of-towner, looking to tear down green space and put up units that may not sell, and will certainly increase traffic.
The project, called Copper Bend as Mr. Munger explained, would have condo units from 850 to 1800 square foot, selling for 100K to 130K. Besides, he explained, the development would have 4 little subdivision circles, each with a small park in the middle and walking paths through them. These would be connected and arranged in the shape of a 4-leaf clover of sorts. Much nicer and more orderly than say 250 units in straight rows.
About 25 people were there asking very pointed questions, some getting answers, and some leaving feeling like they did not get an answer. A public hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 1 at the City Council Meeting at 7:00 PM. Mr. Munger stated that if his project was opposed, he would not hesitate to have his lawyers and engineers proceed with a higher density 200 unit project. Nice guy, but still a businessman after all.
I asked what he expected to come from Monday's meeting...if he would pull the current project if anyone showed up in opposition? I told him that there would be no action by council Monday, to approve or delay the project either way. It is simply a public hearing for residents and council, and the matter would go back to committee regardless. I didn't want Mr. Munger to decide Tuesday morning to scrap the existing plans if people show up, and show up they will, to oppose the project. Mr. Munger softened his Monday "my way or the highway" stance, but he did make it clear that he would not be waiting around forever to become a jilted bride. He is willing to make a substantial investment and take a big risk, but some residents took this as a veiled threat. An offer they cannot refuse.
There are several key, key questions that need to be addressed before council should be able to make an informed decision on the zoning.
First of all, the project is a downsizing zoning, again, from an old zoned high density project to a smaller one, but the old zoning is not valid. Or is it? Despite what I have been told, that any rezoning will be required, a second view point is that if the previous zoning is ruled invalid, the site would revert back to the previous zoning amount, which is less than 250, but still more than 120, and is approximately 180 units. This would have been an original zoning from the 70's.
The location of the old, now defunct Hunter's Ridge clubhouse, leads Cmr. Kathie Dunbar and me to speculate that Hunter's Ridge project was originally planned to go all the way back over the 23 acres. Cmr. Dunbar and Cmr. Quinney were also there, to gather information and hear resident concerns.
So the paramount question is what is the legal status of the current zoning for the property? Is it the recent more recent CUP zone for 250 units, is the old zone reverted to if that is invalid at 180 units, or something else entirely requiring council approval for the development? I'm hoping the city attorney will be prepared to address that question Monday.
On a personal level, I have already stated I prefer owner occupied housing. Is a condo owner occupied? I suppose on one level it is, but Mr. Munger could not rule out the chance of a landloard buying a group of condos and then renting them out.
On a professional level, I am concerned about the residents dealing with construction noise, dirt, safety issues, and the future impact on traffic. Hunter's Ridge is a short road with a very residential feel.
I would love to see more owner occupied newer housing units in Lansing. I see the suburban flight into newer housing that is modern, bigger and has more amentities every day. Maybe if some projects like that were built in Lansing, people looking to upgrade would not be forced out of Lansing. But where in Lansing can you find a good sized new home?
Lastly, I urged Mr. Munger to really consider what potential this property has, on the Grand River. Some of the most prestigious and valuable property in the city is on the Grand. It is a finite resource. To put $100,000 condo's on the river seems to me like he is not using the property to it's full potential.
There is a house for sale on Moore's River Drive for nearly a million dollars. Surely 25 acres with Grand River access could be put to better use than 100k condos. Maybe a new neighborhood of 30 owner occupied houses in the $250,000 range would be a more appealing project both to the neighbors and to the residents of Lansing looking to upgrade and stay.
There is no question that Lansing has an excess stock of housing. There is also no question that Lansing housing stock is aging and small. Residents have concerns, and property owners and developers have rights too. I hope we can find a solution that appeals to everyone.
Labels: condos, development, hunters ridge, lansing
Monday, September 17, 2007
Camera Vote Tonight!
Well, by the email and blog posts at LSJ.com on the camera story, it seems to be capturing the attention of many Lansing residents. In my short 4 months, it is definitely the most heated topic to come before City Council. I wanted to make a short post about how and why I will vote tonight, as I currently stand.
First, my prediction is the proposal will fail. I don't think it will be close. Sandy is leaning against, Derrick and Carol are firmly against, and I don't think Brian will vote in favor of it either. That leaves only a possible 4 votes for, well shy of the needed 6 to pass.
The top 5 reasons and arguments I am considering in voting FOR the Act 99 funding are:
1) I believe in providing the best possible technology and tools available for the police to do their jobs, as effectively and efficiently as possible. This is yet another tool for them to help fight crime and keep Lansing residents safe. It won't eliminate crime, but neither do police cars. They just make the police more effective in doing their jobs.
2) Act 99 provides low cost funding for infrastructure and capital improvement projects for municipalities. I would much rather pay for this over 5 years than have other departments or projects cut from this years budget, as the Mayor has indicated may happen. The legal issue behind what he proposes is certainly arguable, though I'm told that since the budget we pass is not a "line item" budget, he has the flexibility to do what he says he will.
3) Neighbors in high crime areas are asking for assistance, cameras included. I spoke to a neighborhood watch captain this morning specifically to get her opinion on cameras. She is all for them, and is astounded and resentful that there is opposition. She is working to mobilize her neighbors to sign and speak out on behalf of cameras tonight. I still say, put them in areas where residents want them, and if residents don't want them, find another one that does.
4) It is not "Cops" versus "Cameras". Despite what you would hear, the issue before us is not an either-or proposition. We are not being asked to fund one or another, we are being asked to approve a specific funding mechanism for cameras. Everyone would love to have more police on the streets, though statistically we are in the higher range of officers per resident compared to similar cities. Though we all support more officers, this is not an option before us at this time. If a resolution came before us for more officers, I would support it. This would have to be a big expenditure though to have an impact. If say, 2 officers were added, my fear is that it would have little or no impact on how many officers are on the streets, and in your neighborhoods. It could be absorbed just to reduce overtime. I would think that the minimum number of additional police officers needed for any substantial impact would be ten officers, at about a million dollars a year.
5) The technology we have does have some problems, and we are working on resolving them. The cameras not being bought with Act 99, not only would not speed up fixing these problems, but could potentially slow down fixing these problems, if money was diverted in the exiting budget to pay for the fixes. Yes, we have some equipment not working perfectly. It never will be perfect. If we waited until it was all perfect before we bought something new, then we would never get anything new.
6) Ok, I said 5, but now I'm on a roll! Privacy advocates claim this is illegal search and an invasion of privacy. I worked in the private security industry for many years. In a typical Meijer store there are maybe 40 cameras, and there are still areas of the 200,000 square foot store that you can't see. So Ten cameras covering 30 square miles on public street corners is an invasion of your privacy? I respectfully disagree.
7) Lansing should not be in a wait and see mode, we should be proactive and a leader in the world. That goes for economic development and for crime fighting strategies. If we waited for some residents and all council members to approve a technology, we would still be using morse code instead of radios and telephones! Some people think that by standing still, you are actually doing something. My position is that by standing still, you are actually moving backwards.
8) It is a small price to pay for the potential good. I have heard about the price being too high, but where were these complaints when we approved a 30 million dollar a year police budget. $75,000 a year to pay back is one quarter of one percent. .0025. Is that too much to pay for safety, reducing crimes, and reducing victims of crimes? Is $100,000 too much to pay? As long as we are setting a price tag on safety, what is your threshold...$500, $1,000? Seriously, I want to know?
9) Crime will move around the corner. The study that we received stated that crime does move when displaced, but when it reoccurs, it is reduced significantly. Criminals have a hard time getting up and running and comfortable in the new area. That is certainly something to keep an eye on. As a bonus, not only does direct crime go down when it is displaced, but neighboring areas see a reduction as well, an unintended positive side effect of camera use. Besides, I would rather have crime on the run, than have it comfortable and accepted.
First, my prediction is the proposal will fail. I don't think it will be close. Sandy is leaning against, Derrick and Carol are firmly against, and I don't think Brian will vote in favor of it either. That leaves only a possible 4 votes for, well shy of the needed 6 to pass.
The top 5 reasons and arguments I am considering in voting FOR the Act 99 funding are:
1) I believe in providing the best possible technology and tools available for the police to do their jobs, as effectively and efficiently as possible. This is yet another tool for them to help fight crime and keep Lansing residents safe. It won't eliminate crime, but neither do police cars. They just make the police more effective in doing their jobs.
2) Act 99 provides low cost funding for infrastructure and capital improvement projects for municipalities. I would much rather pay for this over 5 years than have other departments or projects cut from this years budget, as the Mayor has indicated may happen. The legal issue behind what he proposes is certainly arguable, though I'm told that since the budget we pass is not a "line item" budget, he has the flexibility to do what he says he will.
3) Neighbors in high crime areas are asking for assistance, cameras included. I spoke to a neighborhood watch captain this morning specifically to get her opinion on cameras. She is all for them, and is astounded and resentful that there is opposition. She is working to mobilize her neighbors to sign and speak out on behalf of cameras tonight. I still say, put them in areas where residents want them, and if residents don't want them, find another one that does.
4) It is not "Cops" versus "Cameras". Despite what you would hear, the issue before us is not an either-or proposition. We are not being asked to fund one or another, we are being asked to approve a specific funding mechanism for cameras. Everyone would love to have more police on the streets, though statistically we are in the higher range of officers per resident compared to similar cities. Though we all support more officers, this is not an option before us at this time. If a resolution came before us for more officers, I would support it. This would have to be a big expenditure though to have an impact. If say, 2 officers were added, my fear is that it would have little or no impact on how many officers are on the streets, and in your neighborhoods. It could be absorbed just to reduce overtime. I would think that the minimum number of additional police officers needed for any substantial impact would be ten officers, at about a million dollars a year.
5) The technology we have does have some problems, and we are working on resolving them. The cameras not being bought with Act 99, not only would not speed up fixing these problems, but could potentially slow down fixing these problems, if money was diverted in the exiting budget to pay for the fixes. Yes, we have some equipment not working perfectly. It never will be perfect. If we waited until it was all perfect before we bought something new, then we would never get anything new.
6) Ok, I said 5, but now I'm on a roll! Privacy advocates claim this is illegal search and an invasion of privacy. I worked in the private security industry for many years. In a typical Meijer store there are maybe 40 cameras, and there are still areas of the 200,000 square foot store that you can't see. So Ten cameras covering 30 square miles on public street corners is an invasion of your privacy? I respectfully disagree.
7) Lansing should not be in a wait and see mode, we should be proactive and a leader in the world. That goes for economic development and for crime fighting strategies. If we waited for some residents and all council members to approve a technology, we would still be using morse code instead of radios and telephones! Some people think that by standing still, you are actually doing something. My position is that by standing still, you are actually moving backwards.
8) It is a small price to pay for the potential good. I have heard about the price being too high, but where were these complaints when we approved a 30 million dollar a year police budget. $75,000 a year to pay back is one quarter of one percent. .0025. Is that too much to pay for safety, reducing crimes, and reducing victims of crimes? Is $100,000 too much to pay? As long as we are setting a price tag on safety, what is your threshold...$500, $1,000? Seriously, I want to know?
9) Crime will move around the corner. The study that we received stated that crime does move when displaced, but when it reoccurs, it is reduced significantly. Criminals have a hard time getting up and running and comfortable in the new area. That is certainly something to keep an eye on. As a bonus, not only does direct crime go down when it is displaced, but neighboring areas see a reduction as well, an unintended positive side effect of camera use. Besides, I would rather have crime on the run, than have it comfortable and accepted.
Labels: cameras, crime, lansing, police, safety
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Political Musings
Beyond the camera initiative that I have talked about extensively, I thought I would spend a few minutes talking about other city matters.
Storm Cleanup: The South side was hit pretty hard with the storm that hit Lansing. Monday night, the Mayor offered further assistance to those who still needed brush hauled away, which was good step forward. The State is to decide if any funding will be made available to the city, which suffered a million dollars in damage. Call me cynical, but with the state budget woes, I don't expect any relief. That is a sad statement to make. If the state were flush with cash, I'd be more confident that assistance would be given, so I'm sad to say that despite any natural disasters in the future, it will come down to how well the state is doing finacially. That is not how I want to see the state operate. A natural disaster response should not be delegated by the state finances. I hope I'm wrong, and the state comes through.
Lansing Township Last Thursday I was appointed by resolution for the City Council appointment in City-Township sewer negotiations. I'll be working along side Jerry Ambrose, our Finance Director and Mayor's Chief of Staff. I'm really looking forward to the experience, and representing Lansing on this sensitive and important issue.
Housing Developments There are a couple major projects being proposed in the 3rd Ward. One on Wise Road calls for 48 units next toand managed by a church. Half of thes units will be designated for seniors. The Wexford neighborhood has submitted a significant number of petitions against this project. While I think that senior housing is important, and the faith based managed concept is unique and has lots of merit, I don't currently support this project. Too many neighbors are against it. There is an abundance of empty houses and lots of rentals already in Lansing. Generally speaking I prefer owner occupied, followed by single family rentals, and large complexes last. The second development calls for 100 units behind Hunters Ridge along the Grand River. This is a big, big project, and again, faces stiff opposition from the neighbors. I haven't been to a public hearing on this project yet, but I'm concerned that they haven't satisfied the neighbors, and I would like to see a master plan for any riverfront development in the city. Developers need to persevere though...the Westood development came back several times and was changed to address neighbor concerns. It was approved last week. Developers may need to work with neighbors and council to alter initial plans, but some project may still be able to be worked out. For the Wise road project for instance, I would suggest half the size, 24 units, and senior only. That would probably get approval from the neighbors.
Cell Tower Issue Grandhaven Manor has proposed a t-mobile cell tower in the woods near Lewton Rich and Averill neighborhoods, near Lewton Elementary School. Again, neighborhood activism has produced organized opposition. What a great democratic nation we live in! I don't support the tower there, and I think that at least 4 Council Members will oppose it. I'm not speaking for them, but I think Tim is strongly opposed. Derrick is likely opposed. Kathie is in favor of it since she favors infrastructure investment. The others, I'm not sure. I would be surprised if Carol or Sandy went against anything the neighbors wanted. Cell towers are needed, but not in residential areas and near schools. We have some in Lansing Parks, which seems an obvious cash income source the city sorely needs. I am NOT in favor of a moratorium on towers, but would support setting up a master plan for tower placement in the city. Ans just to clarify, this tower project IS NOT related to the Police Communications tower, so opposition to it will not endanger the public, as some rumors are floating around say.
Storm Cleanup: The South side was hit pretty hard with the storm that hit Lansing. Monday night, the Mayor offered further assistance to those who still needed brush hauled away, which was good step forward. The State is to decide if any funding will be made available to the city, which suffered a million dollars in damage. Call me cynical, but with the state budget woes, I don't expect any relief. That is a sad statement to make. If the state were flush with cash, I'd be more confident that assistance would be given, so I'm sad to say that despite any natural disasters in the future, it will come down to how well the state is doing finacially. That is not how I want to see the state operate. A natural disaster response should not be delegated by the state finances. I hope I'm wrong, and the state comes through.
Lansing Township Last Thursday I was appointed by resolution for the City Council appointment in City-Township sewer negotiations. I'll be working along side Jerry Ambrose, our Finance Director and Mayor's Chief of Staff. I'm really looking forward to the experience, and representing Lansing on this sensitive and important issue.
Housing Developments There are a couple major projects being proposed in the 3rd Ward. One on Wise Road calls for 48 units next toand managed by a church. Half of thes units will be designated for seniors. The Wexford neighborhood has submitted a significant number of petitions against this project. While I think that senior housing is important, and the faith based managed concept is unique and has lots of merit, I don't currently support this project. Too many neighbors are against it. There is an abundance of empty houses and lots of rentals already in Lansing. Generally speaking I prefer owner occupied, followed by single family rentals, and large complexes last. The second development calls for 100 units behind Hunters Ridge along the Grand River. This is a big, big project, and again, faces stiff opposition from the neighbors. I haven't been to a public hearing on this project yet, but I'm concerned that they haven't satisfied the neighbors, and I would like to see a master plan for any riverfront development in the city. Developers need to persevere though...the Westood development came back several times and was changed to address neighbor concerns. It was approved last week. Developers may need to work with neighbors and council to alter initial plans, but some project may still be able to be worked out. For the Wise road project for instance, I would suggest half the size, 24 units, and senior only. That would probably get approval from the neighbors.
Cell Tower Issue Grandhaven Manor has proposed a t-mobile cell tower in the woods near Lewton Rich and Averill neighborhoods, near Lewton Elementary School. Again, neighborhood activism has produced organized opposition. What a great democratic nation we live in! I don't support the tower there, and I think that at least 4 Council Members will oppose it. I'm not speaking for them, but I think Tim is strongly opposed. Derrick is likely opposed. Kathie is in favor of it since she favors infrastructure investment. The others, I'm not sure. I would be surprised if Carol or Sandy went against anything the neighbors wanted. Cell towers are needed, but not in residential areas and near schools. We have some in Lansing Parks, which seems an obvious cash income source the city sorely needs. I am NOT in favor of a moratorium on towers, but would support setting up a master plan for tower placement in the city. Ans just to clarify, this tower project IS NOT related to the Police Communications tower, so opposition to it will not endanger the public, as some rumors are floating around say.
Labels: averill woods, cell tower, development, lansing, t-mobile
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
