| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Boisterous crowd packs Flint City Hall for hearing on street light fee
Published: Thursday, June 14, 2012, 7:43 PM Updated: Thursday, June 14, 2012, 7:45 PM
By Kristin Longley | klongley1@mlive.com
Kristin Longley | MLive.comFlint residents pack the city council chambers at Flint City Hall, many of them to protest a proposed $74 street light assessment included in emergency manager Michael Brown's 2013 budget.
FLINT, MI -- A vocal, animated crowd of more than 200 turned out this evening for a public hearing on a proposed $74 per-parcel street light fee.
Residents packed the City Council chambers at Flint City Hall, and many took to the podium to protest the new assessment, which is expected to generate nearly $3 million for street light services if enacted. At least 100 people filled out forms to speak.
The street light fee was included as part of emergency manager Michael Brown's 2013 budget, which also includes a 25 percent average increase of the water and sewer rates for Flint customers and a flat garbage fee that replaces a trash millage.
Many residents said they can't afford the new fees, and spoke out against the power of the emergency manager to impose them. The meeting was still ongoing as of 7:30 p.m.
Some were angry that Brown was not present at the hearing, which was held before a panel of Brown's staff members, including Finance Director Gerald Ambrose, Infrastructure Director Howard Croft and Public Information Officer Jason Lorenz.
Bystanders said the beginning portion of the meeting led by city officials was cut short and proceeded straight into public comment because panel members couldn't be heard over the buzz from the audience.
Flint resident Ruby Adolph, like some of her fellow speakers, became emotional when she spoke of the hardship the street light assessment and other fees would create for many Flint residents.
"I have a lot of friends who are having a hard time staying in their homes and going to food banks because they can't afford to pay their bills," she said, her voice shaking with emotion. "Where are we supposed to get the extra money from?"
Some called for the resignation of the emergency manager and his staff, while others said the mayor and council members should be removed from office.
Flint Pastor Betty Rogers said the city needs to "clean house."
"They need to give up a little bit of their money," she said, referring to appointees. "It's time we take a good look at things. Let's start at the top."
A frequent complaint was the condition of the city's street lights. Many said some of the street lights in their neighborhoods don't work.
Others said a special fee for street lights isn't appropriate when the city has a crime problem and isn't hiring additional police because of budget cuts. FBI statistics released this week showed the city was No. 1 in 2011 for violent crime in cities of more than 100,000 people.
Flint resident Louise Clark said she'd rather pay higher taxes for police than a street light fee.
Flint resident Michael Tobias said he and several other residents would turn their vacant lots back over the Genesee County Land Bank to avoid paying the extra fee for a vacant parcel.
Flint resident David Childs said the city should go bankrupt rather than continue to operate under an emergency manager.
"Quit putting the burden on the people," he said. "Go bankrupt and leave us alone... I'm tired of hearing what you're doing here without our representation, without our vote."
Brown's staff provided a written rationale for the special assessment, which said the city isn't required to provide lighting but does so because it "significantly benefits property owners."
"If the city stopped providing street lighting, it follows that crime would increase; the fear of crime would increase; there would be more accidents; and the quality of life would suffer," the document says. "The benefit of street lighting is a system-wide benefit, meaning individual property owners benefit by having their surrounding neighborhood illuminated."
The special assessment is expected to be included on the summer tax rolls if the emergency manager orders it into effect. |
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:54 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The crowd was between 250 to 300 plus people. The reason the Brown administration represntatives did not pull their usual stunt of reading the agenda and delaying public speaking was the crowd was in an uproar and demanded to speak.
There was more angry words by some in the crowd over the absence of Mike Brown.
The evening was poorly orchestrated. Some people did not wish to speak, but wanted to sign the protest forms started lining up at 4:30. The forms did not come until 5:20, so some signed speaker forms instead.
Some of Brown's speakers had that deer n the headlight look. That is why Ambrose promised to stay until everyone had spoken. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:04 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Transparency is absent in the Brown and Snyder agenda for Flint. Mostly Brown threatens the public, the unions and others with retribution if he doesn't get his way.
Today Brown issued a letter that raised the previously announced street light assessmsnt of $62 to $74.22 per parcel. Someone obviously was unaware when they calculated the first assessment that the land bank and other governmental entities were exempt from special assessments and other taxes. So when they deleted the nearly 10,000 parcels that cold not be taxed the rates were increased for the residents.
Here is an exerpt form Brown's letter:
"While not required by law, the City of flint considers providng street lighting as an important part of public safety; well lit streets reduce crime, the fer of crime and auto accidents from poor visibility. Having well lit streets and sidewalks makes traveling at nght safer and helps police and residents keep a look out for criminal activity. The result is an overall improvement in the quality of lfe for Flint residents."
Howard Croft spoke to the crowd and said that he began negotiating three days ago with Consumer's Energy to reduce the costs. This was supposed to be part of the Department of Energy grant the Cty lost because of blatant corruption, croneyism and possible kickbacks. I could not believe they just started three days ago.
hey blamed part of the inefficiency on mercury vapor lights and indicated Consumers Energy would replace them with high pressure sodium lights. Residents are already unable to replace mercury vapor lamps because of changes in the law, so why has Consumers neglected to initiate replacements already. This may explain why so many street lights are not working. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:15 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The city was revising their rationale for the street lights right up to 2:35 pm today. That may be why the copies did not arrive until 5;20 pm for the 5:30 meeting. And there were not enough made to go around.
"The City is not required to provide street lighting. It does so because street lighting significantly benefits property owners. Those benefits include:
* crime prevention
* a measureable reduction in the incdence of crime;
* reducng fear of crime;
* prevention of auto accidents;
* increase in safety; and
* enhanced quality of life.
If the City stopped providing street lighting, it follows that crime would increase; the fear of crime would increase; there would be more accidents; and the quality of life would suffer. These problems will negatiively impact property owners, significantly more so than non property owners."
Is this a threat or what. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:34 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The rationale further states:
The Home Rule City Act specifically provides the City with the power to specially assess for street lighting MCL 117.4d. In doing so, the legislature recognzed that property owners benefit from street lighting. Multiple Michgan cities and townships have special assessments foe street lights.
The benefits of street lighting is a system-wide benefit, meaning individual property owners benefit by having their individual neighborhood illuminated. There is strong statistical support that well lit streets, sidewalks and neighborhoods have substantial positive effects. The benefit to an individual property owner cannot be narrowly quantified as the amount of illumination he or she receives from the nearest street light. The system-wide benefit of street lighting ensures that individual property owners travel to and from their residences in well illuminated streets, sidewalks and neighborhoods; that crime s reduced; that police can more effectively respond to public safety concerns; that accidents are avoided; and that quality of life is enhanced. All of these benefits call for a speccial assessment based on the cost of the system." |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:57 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Using this rationale (threat) the City proposes the assessment will pay the costs of operatng the street light system and will also pay for upgrades and improvements to the street light system.
The City indicated the assessment will be on the summer tax bills issued in early July.
"Over the next several years, the City will be working with local planning officials involved in the update of the City's Master Plan and Consumers Energy to review the adequacy of street lightng throughout the City. Most immediately Consumers Energy will be starting the replacement of mercury vapor lights with hgh pressure sodium lights, which will result in energy savings to the City."
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:04 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The City of Flint ncluded in their packets a Special Assessment Appeal Petition Form. However, this appeal requires a $100 filing fee to protest the $74 assessment per parcel.
karter Langdon, a local landlord was passing out cards for a class action lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:10 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
This the section of the Home Rule Act that City Attorney Peter Bade refers to in the rationale for the street light assessment. I may only be a layperson, but this section says a city may nclude in it's charter. Flint residents voted on their charter and all charter amendments. To my way of thinking, the EM Brown is circumventing the law.
117.4d Permissible charter provisions; assessing costs of public improvement and boulevard lighting system; definitions.
Sec. 4d.
(1)
Each city may in its charter provide:
(a) For assessing and reassessing the costs, or a portion of the costs, of a public improvement to a special district.
(b) For assessing the cost, or a portion of the costs, of installing a boulevard lighting system on a street upon the lands abutting the street. A city shall not establish a special assessment district for a boulevard lighting system if the district includes the entire city, unless the special assessments against the real property within the district are levied on other than an ad valorem basis.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Boulevard lighting system" means any design or method of providing light to a street.
(b) "Cost" includes necessary condemnation cost and necessary expenses incurred for engineering, financial, legal, or administrative services; operation and maintenance of a boulevard lighting system, whether that service is provided directly by the city or is provided by an investor-owned utility; and other services of a similar kind involved in the making and financing of the improvement and in the levying and collecting of the special assessments for the improvement. If the service is rendered by city employees, the city may include the fair and reasonable cost of rendering the service. The inclusion of a cost specified in this subdivision as part of the cost of an improvement for which special assessments have been levied before the effective date of the 1987 amendatory act amending this section is validated.
(c) "Street" means a public avenue, street, highway, road, path, boulevard, or alley or other access used for travel by the public.
History: Add. 1929, Act 126, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 2234 ;-- CL 1948, 117.4d ;-- Am. 1961, Act 124, Eff. Sept. 8, 1961 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 27, Imd. Eff. Apr. 29, 1964 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 201, Imd. Eff. June 29, 1988
Section: Previous 117.3 117.3a 117.3b 117.4 117.4a 117.4b 117.4c 117.4d 117.4e 117.4f 117.4g 117.4h 117.4i 117.4j 117.4k Next
Last modified: February 20, 2012 |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:08 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Where is the transparency? I was not announced until midway in the process that the administration's representatives announced they would answer questions at the end.
I understand one gentleman backed Croft into a corner and croft finally admitted the Department of Energy had turned down the appeal to restore the grant lost by mismanagement through the Walling - Eason administration. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:49 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Karter Landon, a local landlord is hjoing for citizens to join his class action lawsuit He has had a number of landlords contact him.
# 252-9335
Landon also believes the cost for private trash pick up will be $154. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:40 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Instead of attending the meeting I am told Brown and Walling were at 501 Downtown. |
|
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:41 pm |
|
|
Cornbread Maxwell
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:52 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
Instead of attending the meeting I am told Brown and Walling were at 501 Downtown.
I heard that too. I guess things are somewhat back to normal in Flint. |
_________________
Adam
-
Mysearchisover.com
-
FB
-
Jobs
|
|
|
Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:40 am |
|
|
brianstarr
F L I N T O I D
|
| as i have stated before this special tax for street lights basically is doomed to fail since most people dont pay their bills as it is now plus i also expect that whatever money they due collect will be misspent and either slip into peoples pockets at city hall or end up diverted into the general fund so the broke city can keep making payroll unfortunately like alot of other people i see BANKRUPTCY as the only real option left since the citys too far in the hole financially just like the city of detroit |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:46 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| I understand that Mrs Parker spoke very eloquently on the subject at the hearing and also pointed out that the assessmant process was flawed and possibly illegal. |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:13 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
