Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The original blog covering Barry County and West Michigan's political scene.
Contributors
Posts
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(107)
-
▼
August
(13)
- The "miracle" weight loss of smaller government
- Don't be so negative, Dick
- Parks and Wreck Board?
- General election complexion
- Calley wins State Rep. GOP primary
- Millage requests go down
- Evans wins
- County Board winners
- A Tale of Two Joes
- One small step for democracy
- VOTE!
- Attorney General Misconception
- Endorsement embarrassment
-
▼
August
(13)
24 comments:
Parks seemed to go down all over. Went down in Allegan County too, although they passed a Senior millage.
It's a political backlash involving many factors. But, I believe strongly this election was a "No Confidence Vote" on the powers to be in Hastings. Judge Fisher lost again, Fettkes, now Pratt! The Public is not buying his choices. I really believe he also will have a problem come his next election?
All politicians should now be "on notice", the Public is reacting, they want you to start making positive changes or they will!
I believe those were on renewals(Kent not my area)...new millages seemed to be unwelcome when it came to parks.
Charlton Park new and renewal went down largely because of a loss of confidence in the park board.
The only hope for renewal millage will be if the current County Commission has the guts to demand resignations from the current Parks Board or the renewal will go down again
Pat, they don't have the guts to demand 911 resignations, the Parks Commission would be a even farther stretch of thinking they will even have a 10 minute long meeting, much less have a comment of substance. People in power can demand anything, especially when based upon endless criticism of their possible tyrade "victim"! What a hero he/she would be, the person who stands and asks for the resignation of ron neil and charlie nystrom, for the good of the County. Who has the guts? This election should have sent messages out to Nevins, Adams, French, and Michael Brown! The Public is sick of all this, do something about it, or we will! Don't wait til the next election. Your respect will count NOW, not just before the next time we hit the chopping block.
The Barry Twp and Prairieville Chiefs must not be doing their jobs, or Adams must not be listening. If he is not listening, then they are not doing their jobs informing the Public Adams does not have Public Safety on his agenda. Do your jobs gentlemen!
No surprise here on Judge Fisher Barb, right there with you. His last two choices failed. If I was an aspiring Prosecutor or Judge, I would not want his endorsement or appointment. He needs to be targeted the next time he comes up for election.
Jim Carr, part-time 911 "work when I want to" puppet. He is Rutlands problem, but sounds like he has his nose way down in Hope from your post? All the Twp's should get together and see that he is removed from the Twp Association and their appointments to the 911 Board. He can have his one vote. Hopefully Rutland will wake up someday!
Someone should check on his Post Office retirement and see if he is allowed to be doing all that he is. Seems he could deliver mail if he can do all this other.
Barb,
I must have missed the mining issue somewhere. Jim Alden has some really good ideas regarding treating gravel correctly as a natural and nonrenewable resource. Will Hope Twp. be offered some money in return for their permission to remove their dirt?
Jim has evidence that this issue can be a great benefit to a community that plays its cards right.
Tom
Barb: Would love to hear you and/or David weigh in on the 911 issues (please note the s)! He will not be able to avoid this hot potato, now's the time to start talking! You're down in the Delton area, why are the cops down there letting Adams get away without standing up and backing our men and women in blue?
and, those in brown. In writing this, it just occurred to me: With Wing and Adams attitude "I know nuttin, everything perfect", is that the attitude of the cops in the southern tier of our County? Is this why Jim Carr and Jim Brown took away their southern representation on the 911 Admin Board?
What will Brinkert bring to the table on these issues?
Well, Barb, I didn't mean to light your fuse, but my experience with Jim Alden has been that he does his homework. I don't need to agree with anybody to benefit from their input.
Jim had done considerable research on other places that have charged mining companies an extraction fee and set pretty firm guidelines on property restoration. The guys up on Patterson seem more responsible than the people I knew when I was growing up on the east side of Kalamazoo.
The small mine operators make a pretty good "private property rights" argument that they should be able to dig holes on the property they paid for. We might argue that the general public also has some expectations about how the land and natural resources should be treated by private owners. We don't allow the use of perfectly good outhouses, for example.
The option that always jumps up is "If you want to have control over my land use, then buy it from me". This is my recommendation for the rail trail strategy.
HOW revenue can be used is a different issue from IF it should be collected.
I agree that the Farmland issue has been hijacked by a few people who would gain personally, but that can be controlled by shining a bright light on the process. We have local papers that seem responsive to some issues. Eventually, we elect people who can make a difference. Unfortunately, we begin discrediting them before they even take office.
For the benefit of the personality crowd I will offer another name to attack - General Douglas MacArthur!
Truman took care of the crazed egomaniac and fired him.
That was great! Sometimes I fish all day with that quick of a nibble.
How about Mother Theresa?
Clarification, Barb,
The second round of "Master Plan" work has started with Wms&Wrks. It is the creation of an Ordinance. The so-called Master Plan is only some pretty pages in a book on the shelf. The rubber hits the road with the Ordinance. I made it to the first meeting and was the only non-farmer in attendance. I went to the meeting because it was properly announced to the entire reading public in the paper.
Wms&wrks is being paid a pretty sum to go around the county again to solicit input. If nobody shows up but a gaggle of farmers, and you and me, the "public" will have spoken on behalf of "Farmland Preservation". I predict that McManus Fees will fund "Wetland Preservation" as well.
... and then there is Albert Einstein!
I'm gonna get my limit today!
Mike Lewis: Are you a Jim Carr supporter?
Carr position would get my vote if I lived in your District!
Ward Wieler (sp?) woke me up last night, rolling and tossing in his grave. Almost to his dying day he attended public meetings to scrape away the obfuscation in order to reveal the realities of government. This weeks Banner, like the federal administration, resorted to fear tactics that would have inspired Ward to quote from the 2006 Budget and to rant a bit about surplus funding being the same as stealing from the taxpaying public. The idea that Charlton Park is at risk of being closed is absolute poppycock. Without even considering the overfunding of 911, and the excess millage surplus of other special programs, and without noticing the annual efficiency refund of the Unified Trial Court (any of which could easily overfund Charlton Park), there is more than enough money in the County Generous Fund to keep the place open. On top of all this fear-mongering, it should be noted that the “whole truth” is once again being obscured. Your winter taxes have not yet been collected, and that bag of gold will still have some coins in it earmarked to fund the “jewel of Barry County”. Let us not over-react in haste!
While the Banner should be congratulated for quickly reporting on the Charlton Park Board’s hastily prepared new millage proposal and the lengthy prostheletizing of the defeated and retiring County Board members, a few phone calls don’t reveal the whole story. If a reporter had asked Michael Brown for all of his comments at the meeting, it would have come out that he had done his homework. He pointed out that every millage request for Charlton Park, even in the most friendly times, squeaked by with a very close vote. Being blessed with a ten-year blank check is not something either Board should have expected without a little effort. Many people, including Mike Callton, question the fiscal wisdom of using a special millage for operating expenses. It is a bit like taking a second mortgage to pay for groceries. Administrator Brown pointed out that 25%-35% of the revenue for Charlton Park operations comes from charges for Park services. If you have ever been thirsty during a visit to the Park you probably noticed that the pop machine is about all you can find in the way of refreshments. If you visited the village “businesses” you might have noticed that even the most inefficient historical storekeeper would have tried to get you to buy something. If you went to the 4th of July celebration with hundreds of other citizens you might have been willing to pay a quarter to visit the Museum, but it was closed. The reason given for not collecting a $1 for parking or entry or a raffle ticket is that the Park management can’t pay minimum wage to collect these hundreds of dollars. A “business plan” isn’t a bogus wish list of expenditures. It’s a sales pitch that says things like “We are going to make so much money charging for rides on the train that we will be awash in cash for fixing up stuff”, etc., and then backs up the contention with documented factual information.
The option of closing the Park is ridiculous and not worthy of discussion. It is almost disgusting and degrading, and is certainly insulting.
Charlton Park is not a Museum. It is very clearly a theme park. Theme parks make money! I should say that well managed theme parks make a lot of money. Irving Charlton was not ever a historian. He was a brilliant entrepreneur and a shameless promoter! If we are serious about honoring his memory, Charlton Park will become as successful as Wall Drug. I.C. would have been embarrassed and ashamed to be put on the public dole. He, too, is probably tossing about a bit.
The Museum, even when it is open, is only one of the many places to visit at the Park. Threatening that the huge and incompletely archived treasures would end up in Tennessee was unworthy of Joanne. The 2006 Budget shows that we spent $3925 in Museum funds in 2004 and planned to spend $172,800 in 2006, under the ever-watchful eye of the Charlton Park Board Treasurer Clare Tripp. That hardly seems excessively frugal. Where was this wonderfulness invested? Why should we be excited about what we accomplished with this cash? Who was promoting this vast improvement? Was it spent on the Upjohn House? To where exactly has the “Museum” disappeared? I thought it was an old stone building surrounded with unweeded gardens down by the flag. What plans do we have for the remaining cash of $25,013 in the “Museum Building” (SRF#243) savings account? Why is the financial report so old?
For that matter, how is the Charlton Park Foundation Fund accounted for? Do the taxpayers get an opportunity to see an accounting without being at the Board meetings, or is this another little secret? The heavily touted “Parks & Recreation Plan” submitted back in February 2004 has financial numbers from 2002! I have grandkids that are not that old, and even they can tell the whole truth once in a while.
Check out the “Charlton Park” (SRF#208) saving account balance of $163,646. To paraphrase, a thousand here, a thousand there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.
Jeff VanNortwick is a huge supporter of Charlton Park and attended the meeting along with Keith Ferris. Had they been asked they would have mentioned that a member of the public told about the success of a Steam Club Park near Traverse City that earns over $400,000 profit a year. Jeff and Keith also heard the Charlton Park Board presentation that had no interest in developing the Thornapple Trail with the “extra funding”. Had Mark Fritsma attended the meeting he would not be asking us to give any money to the Charlton Park Board for trails. He would have learned that they clearly had a completely different agenda for spending what many people thought was going to be a “trail millage”. Once again, the “whole truth” was not well uncovered.
Maybe the VanNortwick team can stop whining about signs and shift into public responsibility mode. This would give space on Page 1 to present some factual revelations (not from Revelations, which is different). Shining a little light on the “whole truth” might get us out of the incumbent rut and up on some higher ground. Moving from the inertia of dead in the water or moving backwards, to gathering momentum in a forward direction will take a lot of energy. We shouldn’t waste any more energy on name-calling and trying to create unnecessary fear tactics.
Grillo, you can be brilliant when you're not insulting my work. This quote in particular deserves to be etched in marble and placed somewhere in the fake village at the aforementioned park:
"Charlton Park is not a Museum. It is very clearly a theme park. Theme parks make money! I should say that well managed theme parks make a lot of money. Irving Charlton was not ever a historian. He was a brilliant entrepreneur and a shameless promoter! If we are serious about honoring his memory, Charlton Park will become as successful as Wall Drug."
I do think you underestimate the public's ability to see through the fear-mongering. The hysterical rantings this week along with the embarassing plea from Ms. Tripp in the GR Press will only help to futher discredit the current park regime, ensure the renewal's defeat in November and allow the new board in January to begin to put the park on firmer footing.
One thing you neglect to mention is that the current funding is assured through the end of 2007 so even without digging in to those other funds you name, the park's funding is more than adequate with plenty of time to figure out what to do as long as we ignore the wailing and moaning from the usual suspects who are the ones responsible for what's wrong with the park and still don't get why the public loudly said no.
I stand corrected. The funding through 2007 was mentioned by M.Brown at the meeting but I wasn't sure I heard him right.
I am also brilliant when I am insulting your work.
I have posted a restructuring of the "Parks & Recreation Commission" on my blog. It is a little technical, of course, and requires a familiarity with the 2006 Budget, the statutory requirements of 1965, and the wierd funding and spending habits of the Park. Most of the work on the widely touted "Recreation Plan" was done by Dr. Forsberg which may explain why the financial accounting in it is dated 2002.
I hate the idea of losing this park and its history to decay, and hope like hell the powers that be have the foresight to use what funding is left to start putting the buildings into mothballs now.
Advertising it for sale after november in historical trade magazines would probably be a plus.
To begin with the eventual turnover to private ownership would be the foresight that is needed by the board.
The taxpayers do not take lightly to being told that they are mistaken.
This needs to be a business, not a political football.
When the gals get back from Shanty Creek and have the time, we will have a re-scheduled County Board meeting which will approve a repeat of the first millage request. It will fail again since no further proof of value will be offered.
There will be a reasonably large group of citizens at 7:00 PM on WEDNESDAy night who will squawk and flutter, who will not have read the Statute of 1965, the Resolution of June 13, 1967, the "Barry County Parks & Recreation Plan", the 2006 Budget, or the Standing Committee folder, and will not know the names of all the members of either Commission. It won't matter, since they will be ignored or treated rudely.
No, Pat, I do not have superior intelligence. Doing my homework only requires a reading level of 4th grade. Anybody can do it. Few will.
Commissioners: Give the millage bit a respite and try for a renewal in May. The margin suggest that they don't want to see any tax issue come up.
I don't know much about margins, but the basic problem with a Springtime vote is cost. Perhaps it is penny-wise, but it costs about $25,000 to ante up in the Spring, plus the County gets to pay for the school ballot costs as a bonus.
Paying an extra $25,000+ for a millage that has not been properly presented and is doomed to failure is fiscally irresponsible.
Is it any more responsible to come back so quickly and put your hand out for a cookie when the voters clearly slapped your hand the last time?
I'd actually think it's more wise to plan and campaign for the park once the voters' temper has cooled.
Fred’s editorial regarding Charlton Park is basically correct. I think that “deliberate deception” would be giving the Park folks too much credit. I don’t think they know what they are doing.
One of the Thornapple Trail advocates railed at the few voters for defeating the “trail millage”. Where did he get the idea that the second millage was a “trail millage”? I suppose he read the letters to the Banner by Ken Neil and others who claimed the millage would “complete the development of the Paul Henry Trail”. Maybe he was foolish enough to believe the large print in the ¾ page ad that claimed the same thing in outline form so we would all understand.
Fred was not fooled by these acts of puffery. In his third paragraph he calls the second millage a “proposed increase” of the Park money. At the meetings I attended, the Park chairman stated very clearly that there was no intention to spend this doubled up welfare money outside of the Park.
In his 8th paragraph, Fred tells of attending a millage presentation “put on” by the “parks committee”. I’ve been accused of being caught up in “semantics”, but frequently words define things that seem to be the same but are altogether different. I suspect that the “parks committee” is a group of people, including Dave Hatfield, who appointed themselves as advocates of the “proposed increase” in Park millage. They are not the official statutory “Barry County Parks & Recreation Commission”, and are not legally required to tell the “whole truth”. Dave is not appointed and is not a member of a “parks committee” that has been created officially.
Back to the shell game. Charlton Park needs to have its own official Charlton Park Board. You can look under all the shells, but you won’t find any Board or Committee that is focused on Charlton Park. In the Administrative database you will find a “Parks & Recreation Board”. It is probably a typo. Listed on this Board are the statutory members of the official “Barry County Parks & Recreation Commission” which was set up on June 13, 1967 by the Board of Commissioners, as described and authorized by P.A. 261 of 1965, as amended. I have done my homework and encourage you to do the same.
The “BCP&RCommission” should immediately create a “Charlton Park Board”. This will solve all of the problems Fred describes.
The County Commissioners, Clare Tripp and Don Nevins, are part of the statutory “BCP&R Commission” and should stay on it.
Those dedicated Park advocates on the “BCP&RCommission” could resign from the commission and be appointed to the Charlton Park Board with no shame or embarrassment. Under the direction of the Park Director, Dr. George Shannon, they have their work cut out for them. Ken Neil was a Commissioner, but there is no reason that he can’t continue to serve the Charlton Park Board, and do it with great enthusiasm. He has more Park knowledge than many other ordinary citizens. I know a few other people who would be wonderful additions to this Board, who have no interest in the general issue of recreation in Barry County. I would think it would be logical to recruit a member of the Hastings Area School Board as well as educators and historians.
Fred says “The Parks & Recreation Commission made a horrible mistake….”, regarding the Civil War re-enactors. No, they made a “horrible mistake” by not creating a Charlton Park Board that could have made an intelligent and well-informed decision. They made a “horrible mistake” by micro-managing the Park. They made a “horrible mistake” by not requiring a Charlton Park Board to do a statutorily mandated “needs survey” and by not requiring a Park “business plan”. They made a “horrible mistake” by allowing a shameful excuse for a plan be referred to as a “business plan”, and now even Mrs. Adams is convinced that one exists. The sorry excuse for a plan is a wish-list that totals over $3,600,000!
I would debate part of Fred’s conclusion that the “Parks & Recreation Commission” needs to make “a persuasive case” to a “skeptical public”. This is only the specific task, as he says, of “Charlton Park”, and “its director”. The sooner a proper Board is created, the sooner they can get to work. The longer it takes to form this Board the less time they will have to create a real and convincing “business plan” and make a persuasive case.
Post a Comment