Bill Matt

Funny combination, but a couple of things facing the city in recent weeks and coming up during the budget talks this month.

Northrup Street is currently the Battle Front Central between the Mayor's office and City Council. Last nights meeting brought out residents from Northrup, along with a large group of people supporting bike lanes and sidewalks.

Northrup is a fairly busy road that runs East-West, primarily between MLK, Washington, and Cedar. It is between Jolly and Miller. Due to the streets, and traffic volume, it has street lights at both Washington and Cedar. Trouble is, Northrup is an old style road, with no curb and gutter, and no sidewalks, between Washington and Cedar.

The Public Service Department has determined that repairing this street is necessary, and desires to increase the safety and life of the improvement by installing said curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Many residents support the idea, many do not. Herein lies the conflict.

The city has the absolute right to do this project as outlined in the codified ordinance:

1020.02. Powers of city re improvements; assessments.
In fact, Act 51 from the State will be providing over a million dollars to help fund this project. It is generally accepted that curb, gutter, and sidewalks improve property values, hence the assessment that usually goes along with such improvements.

I have no doubt that some residents feel that such an improvement will NOT improve their neighborhood. I have heard that they like the rural feel of the street. This project has become a political football now between doing what residents want, and what public administrators feel is in the best interest of the city.

I have to applaud both sides for fighting for what feels right for them. Councilmember Sandy Allen, for listening and trying to respond to her residents in the 2nd Ward, and the Mayor, for doing the hard work and potentially politically damaging work of pushing hard for long term investment by the state and lasting improvements for the city.

This is one decision I'm happy to not be a part of.

******

Golf is beginning to warm up again just like Spring. Today, the LSJ had a letter from Claude Beavers pleading for support of Council and the Mayor:

Support golf

Yet again, Lansing's administration is targeting our golf courses, saying they lose money. Are the losses from "administrative charges"? Are all other city activities self-supporting without these charges? Why must golf be?

Why not target Groesbeck and Sycamore, rather than Waverly and Red Cedar? Who decides?

The LSJ reports city officials have brainstormed options for the courses. That's a start. But, it's time to involve others, especially those working at the courses and the golfers themselves.

Bill Triola's opinion (Forum, Feb. 10) offers ideas to consider. Let's have a thoughtful discussion over several months, not just days.

Let's open the courses, maintain them properly and then start developing a plan to preserve these valuable assets. It doesn't have to be a choice between plowed streets or golf courses.

We need the administration's talents and the City Council's support to keep these courses, not destroy them.

Claude R. Beavers
Lansing

Well said Claude. Claude and his wife Anita live a few doors away from me. Anita is President of the Colonial Village Neighborhood Association.

We need to think outside the box once in a while as a city. That is why I wrote a response to Claude and other posters at the LSJ Opinion Blog:

Make Golf Free, for seniors and kids at Red Cedar and Waverly. Limit the free play to 9 holes a day, but encourage the use of these facilities.

How much is golf subsidized? Not very much in the overall city budget.

Condo communities seek potential owners by offering adjacent low cost golfing as an incentive to live there. Lets start making Lansing attractive for people to stay here by offering unique, and low cost, incentives. We subsidize trails, riverwalk, concerts, arts, basketball, soccer, swimming, ice skating, and community centers. Every recreation in Lansing is subsidized. Lets not put a target on golf.

Growing up in Lansing, it was great to walk 9 at Sycamore. Courses on the out skirts of town are not accessible or affordable. That is not an alternative to most Lansing golfers, especially seniors and kids.

Does my suggestion have a chance to become reality? No. Neither Council or the Mayor are willing to take bold new steps and work together for a brighter and different Lansing.

Labels: Act 51, Golf, lansing, lansing city council, Northrup Street

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of bike lanes, sidewalks and trails. Today I got this urgent email:

Speak Up For Bike Lanes AND Sidewalks - in person or by phone, TODAY!

Last Thursday, several Lansing City Council members stated that they would not approve both bicycle lanes AND sidewalks on Northrup Street in South Lansing. Even if you don't care much about Northrup Street, it is one of the east-west connectors in the bike lane network plan that will be presented for public comment this month, and is part of the major road sidewalk completion network. Refusing bike lanes OR sidewalks on this street sets a bad precedent for completing other major roads in Lansing. Whether you live in the city or not, you can still come and tell how complete streets help make a healthy, livable, attractive community!

WE NEED SUPPORTERS OF "COMPLETE STREETS" to come to City Hall this evening to let council members know why complete streets are a MUST-- for public safety, for personal and public health, for accessibility by all users, for environmental protection, and for attracting residents and businesses to Lansing. COME IN PERSON if you can -- 124 W. Michigan (corner of Michigan and Washington), 10th floor. The sign-in sheet for public comment is set out at 6:30 pm.-- come sign in early so you don't have to wait so long to speak. There are no public hearings this evening, so public comment will start around 7:30, after special ceremonies. If you cannot arrive by 7pm to sign-in, please send me your name and address so I can sign you in. Even if you don't wish to speak, your presence will help send the message that you care about this issue. Please, to help make Lansing a walkable, bikeable city, please come and share your thoughts and stories.

If you absolutely cannot make the meeting but you care about this issue, please make calls to Council Members Allen (H: 394-5776, W: 483-4178), Hewitt (H:487-9593, W: 483-4181), Jeffries (H: 482-4416, W: 353-3716), Robinson (W: 483-4191), and Wood (H: 482-0213, W: 483-4188). These are the five standing in the way of creating a complete street on Northrup, and we need to convince them that there is overwhelming support for sidewalks AND bike lanes.

(Ed. Note: Wood, Jeffries, Robinson & Hewitt; of course)

In February of 2006, there weren't enough votes on council to move forward with the Michigan Avenue rain garden project, but your stories, bodies, phone calls, information, and personal appeals led our council to make a well-informed decision in the end. Lansing will soon boast the largest municipal rain garden system in the nation, and will be featured in the World Summit on the Environment in Hawaii later this year. Efforts to offer rain gardens in Lansing neighborhoods are also underway, to be unveiled this spring.

Please, come to this evening's meeting, and bring a few friends along with you too.

Thank you.

Jessica Yorko
Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council
www.midmeac.org
517-214-5684

No Jessica, Thank You!

Labels: A'Lynne Robinson, bike lanes, lansing, lansing city council, Northrup

The Lansing Boat Club issue is being raised again by the City and the Club. It turns out that the City has offered a 1-year lease with a terminal clause and a higher rent. If the lease is not signed this week, then the Club faces eviction. In the space, the Mayor has proposed a Public Marina, though no details have been offered whatsoever.

My initial response was hardline, but I have softened my response somewhat. While I still believe that the Club should not have eminent domain over this city property at ridiculous low rental rates, I don't see what the rush is. The deadline for eviction is this week. No plans have been put forward by the Mayor or Council, so short of enforcing the deadline for the sake of enforcing the deadline, I would extend the eviction notice 3 months as an act of good faith to allow for further negotiating of the contract.

I still favor a Public Marina, and perhaps the Boat Club could be a part of this endeavor. I have serious problems with virtually rent free riverfront property provided to one exclusive club. When the time is right, I would suggest the city offer the property use proposals up for bid, and review all the proposals. Critics of this administration talk about the unwillingness to offer RFP's, and this is a chance to do just that. This riverfront park property should be use for the good of all Lansing residents, and we should make the most of it.

******

What ever happened to the housing development project Faith Gardens? If nothing else, A'Lynne Robinson should make good on her campaign promise to push this project though for a full hearing. Typical do-nothing Council inaction led by the Woods-Jeffries cabal.

******

Snow and Potholes. Critics may be lambasting the Mayor for the snow removal services and the ever growing pothole problems we are facing. I don't much like hitting potholes either! Critics of the Mayor may want to keep in mind that we just passed through February with a record snowfall. City planners can budget for the average and a little more, but not for the worst series of storms in the history of Lansing. That is just not something you can plan for.

******

Uh Oh! Sound familiar Lansing? (LINK)

VALLEJO, Calif. (AP) — A last-minute deal between city leaders and labor unions could allow this cash-strapped Bay Area suburb to avoid becoming the first city in the state to declare bankruptcy over a budget shortfall.

A bankruptcy declaration last Thursday was staved off by a last minute set of concessions by the unions including 6.5% pay cuts and closing of two fire stations.

Cities spend about 75 percent of their general funds on personnel, while the rest goes to libraries, parks, recreation and other services.
Vallejo, a mostly blue-collar city of 120,000 about 30 miles northeast of San Francisco, has been hit especially hard by the mortgage crisis and has one of the nation's highest foreclosure rates.

Labels: A'Lynne Robinson, lansing, Lansing Boat Club, New Faith Gardens, Potholes, Snow

Last night at Public Safety and the City Council Meetings Police Chief Mark Alley gave us an update on the proposed camera system. There are policies and procedures now posted on the Lansing Police Department Website (LINK).

The demonstration showed the pan, tilt, and zoom capabilities of the camera mounted and functional at the Arbaugh Building in downtown Lansing at 401 S. Washington Square. It is in the proximity of the liquor store where frequent loitering is a concern.

The chief also mentioned that the camera views would be available via the internet for anyone to look at. The stated purpose for this was so that more eyes could see potential criminal activity taking place, but what I think was the real catalyst for this idea was that by having open and accessible camera viewing, people can be reassured that the cameras are only being used for legitimate police and security purposes. We the people can and will watch the watchers.

Chief Alley also provided us with a map of the locations for the next 10 cameras to be placed. The North side cameras are to be installed in February, and the South side cameras are scheduled for March. A list of the locations was printed in today's LSJ (LINK).

In addition to the public demonstration, I asked Chief Alley about the status of the South Side Communications Tower. He told us that the tower was installed and is being tested. He said both Police and Fire departments were involved in the testing and the tower was performing beyond expectations. That is really great news for our Public Safety departments. After some final tests, the channels will be programmed and we should be seeing less communication "dead spots" in the city and especially on the South side.

Labels: cameras, Chief Mark Alley, Communications Tower, lansing

Much ado has been made about the recent crime study by the CQ Press ranking Detroit as the most dangerous city in the US. The FBI was quick to point out that the methodology is flawed, but I don't think anyone here would argue that Detroit is pretty darn dangerous, with Flint right behind ranked #3.

How does Lansing fare? (LINK)

We are ranked 109th most dangerous city out of 378 in the study. Pretty high actually, based on 2006 statistics.

It looks like bigger cities face harsher criticism as the top ten or twenty cities are all cities you have heard of, and the safest ten-twenty are smaller towns most people haven't heard much of.

Criticism (LINK): The FBI posted a statement on its website saying: "These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state or region." The American Society of Criminology said the rankings were "an irresponsible misuse" of crime data.

Labels: crime, lansing

Yes, a play on words as Mayor Bernero unveiled his plans for a new permanent stage on the South end of Adado Riverfront Park. (LSJ LINK) It has certainly drawn some attention as almost 40 comments are posted to this story! The plan was to go to the Parks Board tonight at 7:00 PM (Another LINK).

Having worked for LEPFA, the managing authority of the Lansing Center, Oldsmobile Park, and Common Ground, for 3 years, and as Director of the Great Lakes Folk Festival, I may have a unique perspective on this foray.

I am definitely a pro-cultural/entertainment events-minded person that believes these tools are a magnet to the Creative Class and a major economic tool. I generally support these types of concepts. There was some talk a couple years ago about East Lansing installing a permanent stage in Valley Court Park where our GLFF Main Stage is set up. We were of course thrilled with the idea, as I am sure Eric Hart at LEPFA is with this project. The less equipment we needed to rent and install on a tight timeline the better! Alas, that project as an early proposal to the Cool Cities grants was not awarded to East Lansing.

For some reason, I am still just a bit skeptical of this one though. Maybe the price tag of 1.7 million is too high. Maybe the payoff of $40,000 to rent the stage for Common Ground is not high enough to make paying this back worthwhile. 1.7m / 40k = 42.5 years. I have concerns that the stage will have too many holes in the schedule and will sit empty half the summer.

I do know that there will be many other users of this venue such as the Arts Council and summer theatre groups, and once installed a summer concert series is not only viable but necessary. LEPFA will need to step it up and really book and promote some top national acts. LEPFA food and beverage can corner the market for sales and make some money on that angle. The promoters will need to cover some diverse groups and include rock, hip hop, oldies, country and even dare I say, world music.

As yet another tool in downtown revitalization, I really applaud the effort. This has been one great year of major development announcement after another. Soon....well, maybe in ten years, downtown will be packed with a vibrant and youthful nightlife, and full during the day of sophisticted cultural tourists. I'm looking forward to it!

Labels: Bill Matt, lansing, Lansing Center, LEPFA

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.

Labels: condos, development, hunters ridge, lansing

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.

Labels: cameras, crime, lansing, police, safety

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.

Labels: averill woods, cell tower, development, lansing, t-mobile

Early this morning, a merry band of hardy volunteers ventured into the Grand River and canvassed the now revealed river banks to pick up trash and remove debris.

I gamely reported for duty at 8:30am, and by 9:00am was waist deep in the Grand. I worked around the Elm Street bridge where we pulled out approximately 8 bikes, various poles, a shopping cart and matress, tires and junk. This was a typical residential dumping ground, easy to toss things over the bridge rail on a quiet street. I waded along against a firm current until I tripped on something. I usually tried to lift the item out of the water with one foot, while balancing on the other. This went pretty well, with more volunteers in a canoe helping pull things to shore, and more volunteers yet, dragging the junk up the steep riverbank to be stacked near the trail or road to be picked up later.

Further along the river, past the Elm Point Park foot bridge, we found a concentrated area of what appeared to be older commercial garbage. Some full, 5 gallon paint buckets that had long since been dumped, a cash register, something that may have once been a fridge or ice box, and several deteriorating barrels. Most of this trash was lodged in the mud of the bank, and took lots of effort to dig out, pry and the roll up the bank. The smell of petroleum was fierce, and thin oil slicks drifted away from where we worked.

The chore was exhausting, dirty, smelly, and hot! Being there with other volunteers was great and seeing a major and immediate difference was rewarding for all of us. It was great.

Labels: Bill Matt, clean up, Draw down, Grand River, lansing

Today the Mayor held a press conference announcing a six point plan to increase police presence in the city in an effort to reduce crime. This is most certainly due to the recent rash of homicides in Lansing. Last year we had a total of 6 in the city. This year we are at 8 and counting. For the first half of last year we had 2, an increase of 300% over the first half of this year. Residents are demanding action, and the Mayor has responded.

The plan includes 10 video surveilance cameras at a price tag of $250,000.00, and one additional officer to work with neighborhood watch groups estimated at $100,000.00. The cameras will feature recording devices with video saved for 2 weeks, which will certainly help to investigate crimes after the fact. The main goal however is to deter crime in the ten hottest spots in the city. I would expect that at least one, maybe two, will be deployed in the 3rd ward.

This afternoon, City Council had the chance to question Chief of Staff Jerry Ambrose, and Police Chief Mark Alley. There were reassurances that training would be extensive and sensitive areas, such as your windows, would be blocked out, protecting your privacy.

Similar efforts are taking place all over the country:

Baltimore (LINK)

Other surveillance-camera systems in Baltimore have reportedly been successful crime-reduction tools in the areas in which they have been employed. The Downtown Partnership, for example, has had surveillance systems in place since 1996 in various places in the city center; the nonprofit downtown booster organization has 80 cameras nestled into well-marked areas.

And the ACLU has it's concerns:

But with the cameras come privacy concerns, and groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center say that surveillance cameras fail to truly reduce crime in urban areas, are subject to abuse by government and law-enforcement officials (in a position paper on video-surveillance, the ACLU cites a case in which a Washington, D.C., police officer used the cameras to gather information on patrons of a local gay club), and have a “chilling effect” on public life.

And in Philadelphia (LINK):

PHILADELPHIA -- A year after the first city-owned police surveillance cameras came online at 12 crime hot spots, the results are inconclusive but encouraging, officials said.

Initial statistics compiled by the city suggest the cameras are reducing crime at key intersections while generating arrests for crimes that previously went undetected, according to a report Sunday in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

An additional 500 cameras are slated to be installed during the next two years, officials said.

So Lansing is far from the first to try this method of crime fighting. Several people spoke out today to voice concerns over privacy issues. One even called it a form of slavery. Please.

From my personal experience, I have had two Neighborhood Associations request cameras to help deter crime in their neighborhoods. Clearly there is a divide between people that want cameras and people that don't want cameras. I suggested to the administration that rather than look strictly at hard data and decide where to put cameras, they work with neighborhoods that want cameras initially, so as to lessen the soon to be heard public outcry.

I am a big fan of public safety. I think we should be upgrading our police technology to get the police the best tools available to get their jobs done. That includes cameras. In fact, part of the NAN program I am working on would eventually incorporate the technology infrastructure to support wireless cameras in neighborhoods. I also think that privacy issues must be strictly adhered to, and that no one's civil rights are infringed upon. Walking and talking in public, while being video taped, doesn't in my mind take away civil rights.

The Mayor's plan also calls for youth activities, family building, and strengthening neighborhood watches and associations. It is a wide ranging and ambitious plan, with cameras just a small part of the overall strategy. It will certainly get most of the press and scrutiny over the next few weeks. Council will have to approve the funding for these programs, so we will be looking for answers from the administration to your most pressing questions. Please let us know.

Labels: Bill Matt, cameras, lansing, lansing city council, police

An issue before us on the ballot Tuesday is decision on whether to sell the South Grand Avenue parking ramp.

City of Lansing Sale or Disposition of Waterfront Property LINK

A portion of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 112 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 Block 113 Original Plat and vacated Allegan St. east of Grand Avenue beginning at the intersection of a line 22 feet north of the south property line of Lot 3 Block 112 Original Plat and the Grand River thence west 25 feet parallel to the south lot line of Lot 3 Block 112 Original Plat, thence south along a line parallel to the west bank of the Grand River to a point 4 feet south of the north line of Lot 3 Block 113 Original Plat thence east along a line parallel to the north line of Lot 3 block 113 Original Plat to the Grand River, City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan?

Did you get all that? Me either. If a paragraph is harder to follow than that, I don't know where it is!

A number of people have asked what I thought, so I'll give you my take.

The vote is required for the city to sell any riverfront property. A developer has proposed a large retail housing mix with parking. Their plan calls to tear down the old City Club property which is adjacent to the ramp to the South. This vote authorizes the city to develop property on the river, be it for this development or another. The city cannot develop all of the river fontage on our own, so we must work with developers to get a nicer riverfront. This is just like the vote that we just had for the Ottawa power station, where it makes obvious sense to sell some dated and depleted assets for a chance to develop it. It is in fact such a given that this type of developement is a great business decision, that there is talk of making a broader riverfront ordinance that would be more efficient and flexible. We will try to identify parcels to be rehabilitated and parcels like green space, to be protected so we can move forward with opportunities, be it public, private or grant driven, quickly.

The ramp itself does generate a revenue, but frankly, it's just getting too old to maintain it. The fact that the ramp is on the river which makes it an attractive parcel is actually very fortunate for us. Why would we want an old deteriorating ramp that we couldn't fix or sell. The thinking is that the development, even with tax abatements for 12 years, would be a net positive financially for the city, plus with a denser population of residents, the economic advantage is larger still. Well, we did not get specifics on these projections, but I would be confident that the gain is greater than 200 grand revenue from the South Grand Ramp minus repairs, etc.

There are still questions for the developers and the EDC. What is the estimated tax revenues for the new development? How much public parking will be available? Which parts of the small parking lot on the City Club parcel will be used? How exactly do you "sell or otherwise dispose of that portion of the South Grand Avenue parking ramp"? A Portion of a ramp? What?

The plan also mentioned maintaining (and actually replacing a broken) riverwalk access to the public. We will want to ensure this, and again, it should be a net investment to the city compared to our cost of fixing and maintaining that section of riverwalk. I would expect all departments, especially Planning, along with LEPFA and the downtown PSC to get a riverfront master plan for Lansing completed.

When I see the Grand River in Lansing Michigan, I want to see a sprawling boardwalk with parks and stores filled with couples and families, retail and entertainment, and yes, even condos. This vote will help us develop and highlight our greatest natural asset, so I plan to vote YES.

Labels: Bill Matt, lansing, LSJ, South Grand Ramp

Brought to you via the Washington Post (LINK)

Montgomery County officials have taken the unusual step of warning Comcast cable subscribers about an imminent change to the terms of their agreement with the cable provider that would limit customers' rights to take legal action.

Seems Comcast slips in a little paper notice of your agreement to arbitration to settle disputes, giving up your right to a court case, including class action, if you decide to sue them.

Here's more:

In bills sent in July, Comcast, which provides cable service to more than 150,000 homes in Montgomery County and 24 million nationwide, informed county subscribers of a policy change that county officials say denies customers the right to take the company to court and bars class-action suits. Instead, the change would require serious disputes to go to arbitration.

I'm sure one of these County Commissioners were notified of this action by one of their eagle-eyed constituents, and I wanted to share it here with you so you too can keep an eye on your JULY monthly statement. He is the power of citizen journalism and being your own best watchdog brought to life!

Disclaimer, I am a Comcast subscriber for cable and internet access. The prices are high, but I like local programming and DSL is not an option in our neighborhood. Overall, for the quality of the product I am very satisfied. For the price, very unsatisfied. Regardless of your choice, everyone should be allowed their day in court.

Labels: cable, comcast, internet, lansing, legal

So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.

Isaiah 41:10

Labels: Carol Wood, Genesee, lansing, Ruth Hallman

A few things going on this past weekend that I wanted to share:

First, my family and I attended the Potter Park ribbon cutting ceremony Sunday and then stayed in the park for a few more hours. Free events are great and the weather was perfect. I introduced my family to Mayor Bernero and the boys were very excited to meet him. I am happy that the region stepped forward to financially support the zoo. It is a great hometown attraction! My favorite exhibit? I like the Otters. Look for the new Bald Eagle exhibit to open later this year. In addition, I am up for appointment tonight to the Zoo Board. I know one council member will not support this appointment, however I respect her decision.

Monday brought the tragic news of another Lansing shooting death. The State Journal article can be found by clicking here.

My heart felt condolances go out to this young man's family and neighbors.

Sunday the LSJ reported on a lack of police communication signals in South West Lansing. We have over 95% coverage in the city, and the plan is for an additional radio tower in SW Lansing to help alleviate this problem. We are concerned, and working on fixing the problem.

On Saturday, there was a story on census statistics and how Lansing is again losing population. Why do people leave a community? My own personal experience is that it is do to parents looking for better educational opportunities for their kids. Maybe the older housing stock drives people to look for newly built houses. Maybe they desire larger properties and a little personal space. Maybe reports of crime and violence drive people away. I'm sure many factors play into these decisions. One thing I would like to see happen in Lansing is a U-Promise type scholarship like they arranged for in Kalamazoo. Kids graduating from K-zoo public schools are awarded college scholarships, and people are actually moving back into the city now! The issue is huge, but certainly not unique to Lansing. What do you think? Click on the comment link and leave your comments!

Labels: crime, lansing, news, population, potter park zoo