you are our first priority.” – (s) Anderson and Zanon
Clerk [1] and (former) Mayor
Are the parking ordinances within the city limits of Iron
River enacted in the best interests of the local taxpayers?
The ordinances may be found at:
http://tinyurl.com/6mkam4g
Cities that don’t concern themselves with such nitty gritty
while unnecessarily controlling citizen behavior have a
much easier solution than banning overnight parking, let
alone banning longer than 72 hour parking. What
constitutionally permissible objective is achieved by
prohibiting parking in the ways that Iron River does? Other
cities simply plow in any cars parked where snowplowing is
necessary. It is left up to the automobile owner to dig the
car out. That’s part of the price of ownership.
But the real problem, much more than the inconvenience
afforded by such ordinances, is that the existing parking
ordinances destroy property values for certain buildings
that should, and could, become housing for low income
families or the elderly. Because of parking regulations,
year round street parking is not available to 2nd and
3rd floor apartments that exist in downtown Iron River
and they have been unused for several decades. This
essentially destroys the commercial viability of a majority
of existing upper floor downtown apartments. Most
renters need a car in order to go to work. With no public
transportation available, another area where Iron River
falls short (and more discussion in IronCountyDoings in
the future,) essential regional trips become impossible for
potential tenants who have no car because there's no
parking available.
from the Middle School, to be converted. Middle School
could have been easily converted to apartments as it was
and is an intact building currently in use. But no grant
money was found, so it has been repurposed in an
unsustainable way at additional public expense. And it
looks, at the moment, as though the wait for Central
school to become apartments will outlast many of our
senior citizens in need of downtown apartments. Central
School has been vacant for a long time. Perhaps the
grant money that the city, and the contractor, were
relying on dried up for that project?
There isn’t a viable plan in place for affordable downtown
housing in Iron River. IronCountyDoings asks, “Why not?”.
The city is well aware of the discussion about apartments in
the Iron River Downtown Blueprint that was created at a
public expense exceeding $100,000. A copy of the report
(printed version weights about 1.5 pounds) is available on
the Internet at:
http://tinyurl.com/89xq22l
See pages 35 and 36 for a discussion about downtown
apartments. HyettPalma unfortunately fell short by not
discussing the real reasons the apartments are not
currently viable. But then, the entire Cool Cities project
was brought about through the auspices of the Michigan
Municipal League, and criticism of cities would not have
been in HyettPalma’s best interests.
That, by the way, is the reason that further Cool Cities
projects are contraindicated in Michigan. Are you
listening, Michigan Legislature and Governor Snyder?
Such partial fixes don’t serve the public well, because
the consultants’ hands are tied by political interests. I’d
love to know what HyettPalma really thought about Iron
River. Their thoughts are probably much like mine, but
their livelihood depends on doing the best possible job
under the existing political constraints. It is hard to fault
them under such circumstances.
The first part of the problems related to downtown
apartments has to do with the city rigging the game for
its own benefit instead of, as repeatedly promised, to “serve
our local taxpayers.” Propaganda, as a partial truth, is a
powerful political tool extensively used here in the United
States. That's certainly the case here in Iron County.
The second part of the problem is that the City of Iron
River appears to base its entire strategic planning
exclusively on the availability of grants.
If any sort of grant were available for permitting overnight
parking on city streets and publicly owned parking lots, the
City of Iron River would lose all reluctance to allow parking
the way that most cities in the US do. Why hasn't the City
of Iron River done that for the public good?
In the meantime, why are apartments are being wasted?
They’re wasted on the premise that it is more convenient
for city snowplows not to have to plow around cars a few
days a year.
Consider that. Just a few days a year! Tell me, Mr. and Mrs.
Citizen, how’s that working for you?
With an increase in the value of downtown properties
based on use of upper floors as apartments, we could either
be receiving more and better city services, or the taxes that
exist could be reduced. Is the small convenience to
snowplows a few days a year worth giving up all that?
How is it serving the taxpayers of Iron River?
It is obvious that more people living downtown would
also mean more consumers for the local businesses,
as well as a broader tax base for the city and the
school district. It would also create additional income
for all downtown building owners, and with higher
demand for goods and services comes more employment.
But after decades of non-use, even with an immediate
change in the parking ordinances, the other
improvements will take time, though doubtless far less
time than has been wasted on repurposing Central School.
The solution requires the city to start planning based on
service to the public. There’s a tremendous gap between
realistic public service, and governing a region based on
“well they probably won’t complain about this.”
Unfortunately it is the later paradigm that is currently
in use in Iron County and has been used here for a long
time. Could it be that public officials have been doing this
so long that they aren't even aware of their decision making
process?
The city spent half of $100,000 (the state provided the
other half) to get the Downtown Blueprint created for us
by HyettPalma. I’m still waiting to hear about meaningful
implementation meetings involving local government,
business, and the general public. The Blueprint document
provides only direction, but it offers no solutions. That’s
the city’s job, and the city has failed to do very much. Five
years have passed since the Blueprint became available in
2006. You can count the achievements on less than one
hand, but you would soon run out of fingers enumerating
the failures. Why is the city wasting the Blueprint this way?
While I’m on the topic of the Blueprint, pages 7 and 8 list
“Concerns.” The most salient of those is a discussion
about the negativity and apathy of some of the people
interviewed. HyettPalma only interviewed prime players
in the Iron River environment. This should not be glossed
over! Of a number of other Blueprints prepared for
Michigan cities that are available on the Internet, Iron
River’s is the only one I found that has such a concern
expressed by the consultants.
It is the primary function of this publication to raise issues
depicting the failing performance of Iron County local
governments to public scrutiny. The local newspaper and
radio station serve the role of providing the equivalent of
“society pages” describing the happy moments experienced
despite local governmental oppression. It is a sad
commentary that this publication is forced to provide the
function that it does.
I attended the meetings leading to the Cool Cities
Blueprint providing ideas and enthusiasm. It didn’t take
very long for those charged with running the city to quash
them. Yet, it is in that same positive sense that I expose
shortcomings and “lip service” of those government officials.
My hope is that somewhere along the way one of these
articles becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back,
leading to a serious review on the part of Iron County local
governments along the lines of :
“Just what are we doing anyway, and how can we improve?”
Of course that brings up the important question, why aren’t
the elected and appointed officials doing that as a regular feature
of governing? Our governments need to create the incentive
necessary to have plenty of public presence at your meetings.
In fact, why doesn’t every public body in Iron County make
the above quoted initiative a regular agenda item for every
meeting?
We begin by changing your “rules of order” to prohibit
adjournment and dismissal of the quorum until such time as
at least one idea for improvement has been brought to the
floor, discussed, and voted on. Every meeting would then bring
about some bit of much needed progress. Possibly the toughest
hurdle is to get elected officials to think in such terms. How
about a public “suggestion box” that has every submitted
item considered and voted on at the next meeting? Where
a delay for study is needed, vote to put the item on the next
meeting agenda for resolution, but NEVER drop that ball.
Enthusiasm is catching, just like the negativity and apathy
that persist in the region at present. Who provides the
leadership that drives this paradigm and can change it?
Elected officials? Chamber of Commerce? Churches? Library?
The Caspian progressive group?
IronCountyDoings suggests that all of the above, and any
other interested person or group, cooperate in a concerted
effort to undo what currently ails Iron County.
In the “if I had my wish” category, any elected official not
bringing at least two good ideas for improvement to a
meeting every year should be prohibited from standing for
re-election. Heaven knows there are plenty of things in Iron
County that can be improved. Elected officials are supposed
to represent the interests of the electorate. Voting solely on
proposals made by others pays only lip service to that
promise.
Bill Vajk
Footnote [1] We previously listed Anderson as treasurer when Anderson is actuyally the Clerk. We apologize for this error.
No comments:
Post a Comment