Nowhere to go but up for downtown Ferndale

Downtown Ferndale has nowhere to go but up--literally.  The downtown is land-locked by residences on all sides with virtually no undeveloped land on which to build or pave.  The only way to add more square footage for new businesses, retail, residential, or anything else worth attracting is vertically with taller buildings and dare we admit, taller parking.

Being land-locked, our downtown has only three options; build up, demolish the homes that constrain its growth, or stay the way it is.

Downtown Ferndale is exactly what it is.  A commercial area surrounding the intersection of Woodward and Nine Mile roads, with a mix of bars, restaurants, retail, services, and a few multi-unit, multi-floor condominiums.  With the present restrictions on space, the downtown can only change its face by replacing or reusing existing buildings and parking lots.

The 3-60 Project, which proposes multi-use, multi-story, parking-included developments on both the north and south sides of Nine Mile Road west of Woodward (the green-glass-looking buildings in the picture) proposes a disruptive change to the character of our downtown.  The rub is in speculating whether that change is good for the community or bad for the community.

There are two ways to increase our population.  Increasing the birth rate and subsequently the ratio of persons-per-dwelling, and increasing the number of residential units.  City council and the zoning boards can do little about the former except to have babies themselves.  But government can do something about the latter, increasing the number of residential units, provided they have a partner in the private sector willing to invest in building new residential units--either single or multi-unit.

Office space increases the city's population during business hours, with a little spill-over outside business hours as workers stop for a beer, a yoga class, do a little shopping, or a have their hair done before going home.

But one question that needs to be answered before proceeding with 3-60 (or any other similar development) is what is our downtown's capacity?  And by that I mean, how many people can all our downtown businesses accommodate at one time?  Let's pretend the 3-60 project increases both our city's population and its downtown daytime population--how many seats are available in restaurants?  How many people can shop in its retail?  How many people can fit in a kick-boxing class?  Will our downtown's capacity be overwhelmed?  Are there enough parking spaces for all the new visitors along with the old?

Lastly, it must be admitted that if the 3-60 project proceeds the downtown area will temporarily lose parking spaces it can ill-afford and some businesses may not survive.  Those that do may experience some loss of income.  That's regrettable but unavoidable with any plan.  The potential upside for businesses that do survive, and for new business that replace the old, will be more profitable and durable businesses.

So in the end, city council must decide if they want a new downtown with a new look, but at the expense of some of its existing businesses and its current character.  To protect itself and the community, the 3-60 developers will have to enter some kind of covenant with the city that guarantees the job will be complete.

Before voting one way or another, the council should negotiate that contract and expose it to public comment.

And of course, voters will have the final say on whether they agree with council's decision or not, and will have to live with the consequences either way.

Whatever happens in the short term, this project will finally provide some interesting fodder for this year's council elections.

Inkster Judge Sylvia James removed by Michigan Supreme Court | Wayne County | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Inkster Judge Sylvia James removed by Michigan Supreme Court | Wayne County | Detroit Free Press | freep.com


My favorite part, "In light of this court’s responsibility to ensure the integrity of our judicial system, both in appearance and in fact.." while one of the court's own justices is being (or should be) investigated.

Maybe the court can cut & paste some of this ruling onto hers.

If You Give a Moose a Millage...

In 2008 I advocated against the zoo tax, not because 0.1 mill was excessive, but because of its inevitable consequences outlined in the definitive treatise on tax policy by famed author Laura Numeroff, "If You Give a Moose a Muffin."

If you're not familiar with the children's story, the story tells of a young boy that gives a moose a muffin, then the moose wanted jam, and when the first batch of muffins were gone the boy needed to make more, etc. etc. etc.  Though the boy and the moose get along famously a cynical moral-of-the-story may be, "If you give a zoo a millage, it'll bring friends."

It's as impossible to feed a single pigeon or seagull--word spreads.

Now the Detroit Institute of Arts wants to double-down on the Zoo's millage and is requesting its own 0.2-mill property tax.  That would represent a 200% increase on property taxes for cultural institutions.  Sure, in real numbers the tax is only 0.2 mills, but will it end?

If we pretend neither the zoo or DIA will request increases (the Zoo already has permission to ask for an increase to 0.2 mills), why shouldn't the Holocaust Museum, Museum of African American History, Detroit Historical Museum, Michigan Opera Theater, Detroit Symphony Orchestra, or Detroit Science Center,  get their own 20-year 0.2-mill property tax?  Altogether those taxes would be 1.5-to-1.6 mills.  Which of these cultural centers are less deserving than the zoo, and who will make that argument?

Once increased, do you expect those millages to disappear in 20 years?  How many taxes do you know that have expired?  How many DDA, PSD, or COD taxes do you know that have expired?  Are your school millages expiring or are supporters asking for to extend millages to 2033 or beyond?

As Matt Schonert wrote on WDET's Facebook thread, "If you want to support the DIA, become a member."

Just as many voters believe supporting government welfare spending is charitable (it isn't), so must they believe increasing taxes for cultural institutions makes them patrons of the humanities (it doesn't).

As Mr. Schonert suggested, the best way to feel like a patron is to be a patron.  Buy tickets, take friends, and attend the events.  If those events aren't appealing enough to make time on your schedule or part with your own money, why insist your neighbors part with theirs?

No goal? No plan? No millage. (Part 2)

At Sunday's issue forum (now available on YouTube) I recommend voters say, "Not now," as in, "Vote no," on the school millage proposal on February 28th.  I recommend "not now" so voters will have the time to get some important questions answered from both administrators and school board members.

Questions like:

• Why are 1-in-4 Ferndale district students' parents choosing to send their kids to other districts?  Why are the numbers 1-in-10 for Royal Oak and 1-in-25 in Berkley?
• Do (low) district-wide test scores reflect our community's commitment or the district's commitment to educating our children?
• Should nearly half (47%) of our district's enrollment be coming from out-of-district?
• What are the district's objectives for increasing student proficiency and college preparedness?
• What is the district's plan to achieve those objectives and when will students, parents, and taxpayers see those results?

In Rob Bokram's closing remarks at Sunday's forum, he said, "For 40 years Ferndale has consistently supported millages and the citizens have rallied around every single millage proposal because they recognize the value of doing so."

Not true.

In 2003 Ferndale districts taxpayers voted-down a millage proposal, and in doing so, sent a message to the school board, administration, and bond supporters that sometimes more time is necessary to make a better case.  Overlooking 2003's election isn't Mr. Bokram's fault, and I don't point it out to discredit him, but to remind voters they've voted "not yet" before, and should do so again on February 28th.

From Ferndale Patch (13Dec2011)

Since Meier has been superintendent at Ferndale, he has attempted two bonds: one in 2003 and one in 2004. The 2003 bond failed because, he said, there may not have been enough time to get the information into the community.

After giving both voters and the district more time, the bond request passed in 2004 by a 3-to-2 margin.

Now's a better time for Ferndale voter's to repeat their 2003 decision, and vote "No."  Or if you prefer, and I recommend, "Not yet," on Tuesday, February 28th.

No goal? No plan? No millage. (Part 1)

Sunday's issue forum on the $23 million school bond proposal should be available soon on youtube.  During the discussion, pro-bond supporter and member of Citizens for Quality Schools, Robert Bokram, took issue with some of my numbers (available here for anyone to review).  He insisted that Ferndale's core K-12 program is populated with 87% in-district students.

Let's pretend his number is correct.  Does that number reflect any better on our community's schools?  Do we really believe that our community's students, after 13-years of a Ferndale School District education are only capable of a 36% proficiency in math?  53% in reading?  54% in science?

I would expect that if we believe Mr. Bokram's number is accurate, our community should be embarrassed that its dedication to its school system, that $62 million spent since 1995, and another $23 million proposed in two weeks has only managed to educate our students--to prepare them for their future--so disproportionately less-achieving than two other districts that share a boundary with ours.

Again, voters must ask themselves what is the district's goal for our students?  What is its plan to achieve that goal?  If there is a goal and there is a plan, is that goal and plan to increase our student's readiness for college and jobs in health-care, engineering, alternative power, or other high-tech industries our state is trying to grow?

The good news, if you can call it that, is that Ferndale is performing better than either Oak Park or Hazel Park.  But with those two districts performing near the bottom, we should be careful not to brag too much.

Oakland County commissioners prove party more important than policy

The Michigan State Legislature recently passed a bill, ready for the governor's signature, that limits the maximum number of commissioners for county's with more than 50,000 residents to 21.


If citizens knew nothing more about that, the major topic of conversation should be, "How does reducing the number of commissioners affect my representation?"


If citizens knew little more than that, but that reducing the number of commissioners might save the county $500,000 in pay and benefits by 2013, and $2.5 million by the next census (the math doesn't work out but I'm quoting here), citizens might amend their first question to, "Is saving $500,000/year in our cash-stretched county worth diluting my potential influence 7.4%?  If so why not cut another two commissioners and save $1 million by 2013?"  Or perhaps declare, "No loss in representation is worth a measly $500,000 by 2013."


But instead of debating policy issues, or whether the number should be reduced at all, or whether having county commissioners responsible for drawing districts as the legislature does for the state is a better idea than a committee that includes two non-elected county party chairs, Democrats are crying about end-runs around the first redistricting plan they've had a majority over in years.


The 25th district is represented by Craig Covey (D), former mayor of Ferndale until his election to the county commission.  Now on the commission, instead of representing his district on the weightier issue of diluting voters' representation for a debatable cost savings, Covey's arguing about which political party is best represented and served by redistricting.

"A years ago, I came here excited and filled with energy — today I'm crushed," said Commissioner Craig Covey, D-Ferndale, minutes before walking out on other votes."

Seven of 10 Democrats on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners walked out of a Board meeting Thursday after failing to get support from their Republican colleagues to oppose a redistricting measure in Lansing that seeks to decrease the number of county commissioners, among other changes.

County Commissioners may not be paid as much as state legislators or City of Detroit councilpersons (one of the few full-time councils even for big cities), but I'm pretty sure voters don't need what diluted representation they do have in government walking out of meetings because they're more incensed at how their political party was "dissed."

Which is really what politics has become about, a myopic take-no-prisoners capture-the-flag by-any-means-necessary battle whose first priority is party-control and thoughtful policy-making and moderates are casualties of war.

Oakland County is the biggest loser in this latest tantrum because it's Oakland County's voters that are being cheated out of the real debate--by all its commissioners.  And instead of discussing public policy like mature adults, our commissioners are arguing which party got the biggest scoop of ice-cream.

Eric Sharp blasts Pilgrims on Thanksgiving

Eric Sharp, staff writer for the Detroit Free Press, is the latest writer proving how arrogant we are when we pass judgement on previous generations. For maximum affect, Mr. Sharp's article appeared in the Thanskgiving Day paper where he proceeded to disparaging the Pilgrims from the safe, and arrogant distance of 390 years.

Mr. Sharp, wrote, "We should not teach our children that the Puritans were any more tolerant than most of their European counterparts." My memory may not be as fresh as it once was, but I don't remember "tolerance" and "diversity" being major lessons. Instead we learned they endured a miserable journey across the Atlantic in search of religious freedom.

Later in school we learned about the Salem witch trials coincident with studying the McCarthy era. In English we were supposed to read The Crucible. All were lessons about intolerance, gave meaning to the term witch hunts. Many years after graduating I realized those lessons also warned against political correctness.

Worse, perhaps, than teaching the wrong things (in Mr. Sharp's opinion) years ago is pretending we did for the purpose of building a strawman against which Mr. Sharp can work out his anti-Christian anxieties and moral-relativism.

Before setting out to re-write history, or even reinterpret it from a safe distance, we should remember the lessons of Professor Thomas Sowell and not judge people from years ago using today's "morality."

As soon as I can find the link to his article I'll include it above.

Better to repeal campaign finance law than force donations to the black market

A recent protest supporting the 99% movement took place in Downtown Ferndale Friday, and it was covered by The Daily Tribune.


Nancy Goedert was quoted as saying public funding for campaigns is a soapbox issue for her, but I don't think Mrs. Goedert or others that like that idea have thought it through.


Publicly funded campaigns are a closely-related issue to corporate free-speech, and more specifically, corporate funding of campaigns.  But what protesters often forget is many of their favorite organizations, like MoveOn.org, are also corporations that support both financially and otherwise, political campaigns.


As I wrote in February this year,

"MoveOn actually doesn't believe all corporations should be prohibited from free speech.  MoveOn.Org is itself a corporation--though a not-for-profit 501c3, and presumably wants to preserve free speech for itself.  What they must mean, then, is for-profit corporations should be prohibited from free speech, but that would include companies building green-products like wind turbines and solar panels, growing and selling organic foods, and other corporations that are in good standing with MoveOn."

Another complaint against corporate free speech is the amount of money donated, and the many ways corporate donations are hidden--being given to political action committees and other "issue" campaigns, is a by-product (read: unintended consequence) of current campaign-finance laws.  People, corporate or private, will find ways to support their candidates and causes either directly or indirectly.


Rather than create a black market for corporate donations by making direct contributions illegal, why not remove all the limits and let the donations speak for themselves and the candidates?


For instance, if Goldman Sachs wants to contribute $5 million to President Obama's campaign, wouldn't the public rather know that than have Goldman funnel those contributions through an array of grey-market PACs?  At least then we might now exactly who Goldman is supporting and to what amount the candidate may be obligated to return in favors--like bailouts for banks that are "too big to fail."


Or if local attorney-celebrity Geoffrey Feiger wanted to donate $125,000 to John Edward's campaign, instead of (allegedly) requiring his partners to make those contributions he could have made them directly himself and spared himself and everyone else a lot of time (and money) trying to figure out if what he did was legal or not.


The other problem with publicly funded campaigns is trying to figure out which candidates the funds would go to, and what money-raising restrictions would be placed on other candidates.

A lot of 99%ers complain about the failure and dominance of our (predominately) two-party system, but how much money would the government give to the Green, Socialist Workers, Libertarian, or Communist parties?  Should those parties be shut-out?  What of religious parties?  Mightn't contributions to their candidates' campaigns risk violating the so-called separation of church and state?

And who in the government would decide how much money to give to candidates, and how would that person or department be appointed or elected?

No, the better idea is to repeal campaign finance laws and let the public vote with their own dollars.  And if the public really wants to shut-down corporate free speech then they should look for a case to overturn  Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.

Bullying is on the increase because adults are on the decrease

Warning: this article contains explicit language that may upset young children or naive adults

A child fakes illness for a week because a bully threatened to punch him in the stomach the next time he saw him.

Another child is told by the bully he'll cut his penis off. Another is told to go home and take a picture of his penis and bring it to school or his face would be bashed-in.

"I'm going to bring a chainsaw to school and cut your head off," says a seven-year old girl to classmate.

"Go home and sit on your couch and tell your parents you're going to commit suicide."

These are not stories from middle or high school.  These are stories from elementary school students bullied since the start of kindergarten.  These are stories from a district that has a policy about bullying.  Each of the threats is credible because adults hadn't proved able or willing to stop them.

But this article is less about bullies and their victims than it is about parents, teachers, and administrators.

There's a lot of talk about bullying lately.  But it's only talk, hand-wringing, and politicizing.  Children of all ages can be bully or victim.

The bully's greatest accomplice is a school system unable or unwilling to expel them for the safety of other students.  Bullies face few consequences at home because their parents aren't parenting.  Bullies are enabled by social workers and administrators more interested in experimenting with bullies to help them find "more productive" ways to express their frustrations than kicking, tackling, punching, touching the genitals of or threatening other children.

These adults may not enable the bullying, but they certainly prolong the victimization of other children.

And do you know what young children learn from adults?  They learn their parents are unable to protect them from daily abuse by other children.  They learn that telling teachers or lunch monitors about a boy touching little girls on the playground does nothing to arrest the behavior or remove the culprit.  It teaches them that sending the bully to the principal's office accomplishes nothing because the bully will return to class.

In short, the adults responsible to provide for children's safety turn their backs on the victims so they may trip over their platitudes about misunderstood or disadvantaged bullies.

Without specific punishment for either the bully or their guardians, a state-wide law requiring school districts to have a bullying policy will accomplish nothing.  Without the ability to remove bullies from the classroom adults have done little to protect their own or other children.

As much as you might feel for the victims or even the bullies, the problem is adults neglecting their responsibilities, even after it's too late.

Don't risk losing the news

News can be provocative.  News can be controversial.  Eliminate the provocative and controversial and publications risk eliminating the news as well.  A publication that intentionally avoids potentially contentious news and viewpoints does a disservice to its readers by not informing or exposing them to issues that may require the reader's action, the reader's deliberation, or even the reader to form new opinions or change old ones.

This thought occurred to me after reading an online publication's editorial policy regarding this November's election.

"We believe that objective community journalism should not thrive on drama and comment wars.  We do not run politically divisive stories, nor do we mix news and opinion by allowing comments on the site. 

"[The editor] typically does not vote in local level elections and is committed to her role of remaining politically independent and doing fair coverage."

It is rare for publishers of traditional journalistic properties to deliberately inject drama or hyperbole into articles except that which naturally seeps-in from the writer's or editor's biases.  Most of the drama is introduced by readers commenting on stories, with the worst offenders posting anonymously.

Regardless whether replies are signed or unsigned, they are the opinions of your neighbors.  Whether informed or uninformed, these are the opinions of citizens that may cast votes for or against your candidate or issue.  Readers may choose whether to read comments or not.  Readers choose whether to post their own opinions or keep them to themselves.

Comments, like the articles themselves, belong to the person that wrote them.  A well-written, well-thought-out comment can be as informative as the article itself or provide additional clarity.  As important, a comment might provide a counter-point, keeping both the publication and author honest.

The greatest risk in allowing comments, especially uninformed or vicious comments (or worse, anonymous), is that other readers may not be able to distinguish between good comments and bad, or may form opinions based on rumor or poorly-reasoned arguments.  But if a reader is unable to discriminate between good and bad comments however would the publisher expect them to detect editorial bias or read between the lines?

As valuable and informative as an article may be, as valuable (or disappointing) may be the reactions of your neighbors to the same article.

Granted, not every comment is civil.  Not every comment is kind.  Heck, many comments are barely on-topic.  But comments do reflect, if imperfectly, our fellow citizens.  You may be either encouraged or discouraged by that.

Whichever you are, I encourage you to leave a comment--we're unafraid of controversy.

Why it's important to embrace a 38% increase

Supporters of Ferndale's Headlee override proposal this May shouldn't run away from or deny it's an increase of 38%.  Instead they should embrace it, promote it, and use the magnitude of the remedy as a measure of how crippled the city may become without the millage's passing.

One of my favorite lines from "Clear and Present Danger" occurs when the president's advisors are discussing what to say about the discovery one of the president's close friends was laundering money for a drug cartel.

From FilmSite.Org:

The President's advisors suggested that if the news became public, they could defuse it by downplaying the President's association with Hardin. Ryan suggested the opposite - if the President were to be asked if he and Hardin were good friends, he should answer: "We're lifelong friends...There's no sense defusing a bomb after it's already gone off."

The budget bomb has gone off in Ferndale just as it has the rest of the country.  Pretending the collateral damage is a measly 11% is a whitewash of the problem and insulting to voters' intelligence.

Ferndale's operating millage is currently 14.5448 mills.  If approved, the May ballot proposal will allow council to raise that rate to 20 mills by 2013.  To keep all the deniers honest I'll show my work.

20 - 14.5448 = 5.4552 (the increase)
5.4552 / 14.5448 = 0.375061878
0.375061878 * 100 = 37.5061878% (the percentage)
round(37.5061878) = 38%

Another way we can find this number, or one very close to it, is by figuring out how big the deficit is as a percentage of the revenue Ferndale's general fund receives from property taxes.

According to the budget estimates for fiscal year ending 2012, Ferndale anticipates property tax receipts of $7,573,000.  The budget deficit is estimated in the same document to be $2.3 million.

2,300,000 / 7,573,000 = 0.303710551
0.303710551 * 100 = 30.3710551
round(30.3710551) = 30%

So, which property tax increase do you think has a better chance of covering a 30% hole; a 38% increase or an 11% increase?

Some people confuse my supporting FACT's publishing the millage is a 38% increase over the Yes to Ferndale's Future's 11% increase as evidence my support for the millage is superficial.  What it really demonstrates is my commitment to honesty and integrity, especially when lying is too easily proven by doing simple math (which I think should be a prerequisite to running for office).

Saying the increase is anything other than 38% is an attempt to make the tax increase more palatable to voters.  This is also known as spin, and is disrespectful to voters and property tax payers.

11% is wrong not just because it's unsupported by math, but because it trivializes Ferndale's desperate budget situation.  If the budget was only short 11%, then I'd advocate a NO vote and demand city council find 11% to cut.  An 11% deficit is not an emergency.  An 11% deficit does not warrant a Headlee override.

Instead, our budget deficit is an emergency.  The city can not replace over 30% of its revenue with traffic tickets or parking meter fines.  Our city's obligations to its retirees, whatever voters think of its extravagance or past-councils' approval of such rich benefits, can not be addressed with budget resolutions, wishful thinking, or understatement.

No, our city's deficit is real, it's large, and it requires appropriate and proportionate action to remediate.

There are other problems with both the Yes and No camps' literature and public statements I may address in future posts.  In February I recommended to voters what they should do in both May and November, and unless someone proves my numbers wrong I stand by my recommendations.

Oh, Farmdale is the place to be!

After reading various stories in the Ferndale 115, Ferndale Patch, and The Daily Tribune, I couldn't get this song out of my head.  So the only natural thing to do, was to share it.

(Sing to the tune of Green Acres)


Oh, Farmdale is the street for me
Coops of chickens laying eggs for free
Spreading feces on my garden plot
I'll pretend I'm a farmer and care for my neighbors not

 When I bought my house I felt lucky
Now, I'm living in Ferndale-tucky
I have a chicken coop next door
As if housing values weren't low enough before

.. Group think!
.. The stink!
.. I'll share!
.. Don't care!

 Madison Heights had 'em first
Ferndale couldn't do worse
Oh, Farmdale we are there!

What immigration giveth, emigration can taketh away

[Note: This article originally appeared in the April 2011 edition of Ferndale Friends] 

I promised Ferndale Friends’ interim managing editor I wouldn’t write anything about a specific ballot issue on May’s ballot for which the publish-date of this edition of Ferndale Friends presents an opportune time to promote my position on the subject.

Geography is against me here. The place to discuss the issue I’m not allowed to discuss is elsewhere discussed in this magazine. For this issue, at least, this column’s space has become a don’t-discuss-the-thing-you’re-not-supposed-to-else-you’re-sleeping-in-the-garage zone.

If that wasn’t hint enough, the interim managing editor is my wife, Tiffani (Hi, babe!). So for a while I can get away with admitting I think my boss is hot.

It is Lent, which means that for the 40 days leading up to Easter many Christians will either give something up or try to do something positive so they may become better Christians, or better spouses, students, or maybe just thinner. Many people will take a Mulligan on their New Year’s resolutions.

This Lent, I thought I’d try something similar and not criticize city council or even try writing something nice about each of them. But criticizing government isn’t really a vice and writing nice things about council wouldn’t fool anyone for a minute, so we’ll just see how it goes. I’ll definitely stick with my promise to Tiffani and not discuss the burning question on everybody’s mind as they head out to vote on May 3, “Do I need to bring a #2 pencil?”

The new Jamestown?

The latest census numbers show Detroit lost a quarter of its residents and Ferndale a tenth of its population.

Mayor Bing will likely both challenge Detroit’s numbers in court and go looking for uncounted Detroiters throughout the city’s 139 square miles.

It’s been said the two largest school districts in Michigan are Detroit Public Schools, and Detroit Public School students attending non-DPS school districts.

If estimations of Michigan’s second largest school district are accurate don’t be surprised to find Mayor Bing and DPS Emergency Financial Manger Robert Bobb driving through Centerline, Hazel Park, Ferndale, Oak Park, and other Detroit-bordering school districts looking for Detroiters that have falsified their addresses.

My favorite quote concerning Ferndale’s loss of 10% of its population (2205 people since 2000) came from Ferndale Mayor Dave Coulter in the Ferndale Patch, “"My job is to make the city the best place I can for the people here now.”

(I’m counting that as a nice thing said about council.)

What I like about Mayor Coulter’s comment is its pragmatism. Neither nostalgia nor spin color his perspective. He doesn’t hearken back to images of Ferndale’s past when Irish Catholics bunked children one atop the other in bedrooms and closets.

Pundits, politicians, and cheer-leaders are tripping over themselves in the press, online forums, and Facebook trying to convince the remaining population that losing 10-20% of the population was expected, and that plans are being made to tie meat around south-east Michigan’s neck so Millenials will play with us.

Exactly how many Millenials does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb, replace the economic activity of 2205 residents with beer and Buffalo-wings, or repopulate our school system?
In case you’re unfamiliar with the definition of Millenials, they’re typically described as 20-somethings. But they’re not just in their 20s. Millenials are also in their teens, tweens, and many still have their baby teeth—and Ferndale lost over 1200 Millenials under the age of 18. Statistically, I’m not as confident as Craig Covey that folks in the narrow age range of 18-to-30 exist in sufficient numbers to make up the difference.

(Craig isn’t on council anymore so I don’t count that as a criticism.)

According to a focus group on the Craig Fahle show (March 28) 20-somethings are just as likely to uproot themselves from cool cities after they start families and go on the hunt for high-performing school districts as their parents’ generation did.

For a different perspective on our region’s population loss we need to back up 130 years-or-so to the late 1800s when waves of Italians arrived looking for opportunity, or the Irish before them.

If that’s too far back we can look at what put Detroit on the population map and gave it the one of the nation’s highest median incomes—the auto industry.

Between 1900 and 1930, Detroit’s population ballooned from 265,000 to 1.5 million with immigrants from other states and countries. 100 years later, people are now emigrating to opportunities elsewhere.

Can we blame them? Should we hold them back? Should we discourage our loved ones from seeking their fortunes in the southeast or southwest or anywhere else they’re lured by the century-later equivalent of $5/day?

Not if we want them paying our Social Security and other government health and retirement benefits.

We should be proud of anyone that leaves to seek their fortunes elsewhere. They’ve more in common with the people that came to Detroit 100 years ago and built the Paris of the West than they do the tour guides at The Coliseum.

Well, we’ve made it this far and I’ve kept my promises.

If you have comments or criticisms for me don’t wait for a religious holiday. Write me at tggagne@gmail.com.

Wow, Ferndale's population decline worse than previously reported

More census data is in and the news is worse for Ferndale than previously reported.

The Ferndale Patch reported this morning that Ferndale lost 2,205 residents, over twice the 963 reported earlier in the year.

Complete age break-downs aren't available yet, but the number of eligible voters (18+) has been released and those numbers fell to 16,615 from 17,601 in 2000 or 5.5%.

Apparently, the in-flux of millenials (born between the mid-70s and early-2000s) isn't what we thought it was.

In Ferndale, we hear a lot from politicians and other community activists about how the face of Ferndale is changing because of the increased number of residents under 30.  But is that more propaganda than fact?

65% of Ferndale's population loss, or 1209 residents, were under the age of 18.  Even though they can't vote yet, that's half the Gen-Y population.

There's no data to prove it, but it may be that politicians and others are commenting more on the visitors to Ferndale's downtown than folks that actually live here.  If our downtown's population has increased between the hours of 8PM-2:30AM, it's fair to ask our council persons, DDA, and other armchair policy quarterbacks if that is the population our ordinances, zoning, and budget decisions should be based on.

Yes in May, No in November

[Note: Unlike other of my posts, I reserve the right to make changes or corrections to this article.  Specifically if my math or facts are off a bit I'll correct them.  And I may change some statements to emphasize or de-emphasize a point.  If necessary, errata will be noted at the bottom of the article.]

Ferndale voters should pass the Headlee Override ballot proposal.  Then in November they should begin the process of replacing city council persons that would rather spend money on pet projects and self indulgences with candidates that promise restraint and self control.

The first part can be done quickly on Tuesday, May 3, in only a few minutes time.  The second part, replacing council persons with shorter "what I want to do for you" agendas with replacements promising "my agenda isn't as important as the city's" (as well as the ability to do simple math) will take over 33 months and longer-term memories than voters are normally reckoned to possess.

Households must manage their budgets, as should governments.  When a household's income is reduced its expenses must be reduced, depending on how much cash has been saved.  When a household can't meet its legal obligations (mortgage, utility bills) or its needs (food, clothing), the household is bankrupt and its assets liquidated to pay-off its obligations.

The popular theory is that governments should do likewise.  When their revenue shrinks so should their expenses. Just as employees don't have the privilege of demanding increased wages from their employers, governments shouldn't demand increased taxes from their citizens.

The difference is we created our government and charged it with the responsibilities of both custodian and guardian.  Its custodial responsibilities include the stewardship of public assets like buildings, property, parks, and infrastructure like streets, drains, and lighting.  It's also a guardian of the public and the public's assets through public safety and in keeping the peace between neighbors in the area of establishing and enforcing zoning ordinances.

But because we created it we are also responsible for it.  We are responsible for electing its trustees and for providing them the resources needed to discharge their responsibilities.  But citizens are not required to provide the resources for the trustees pet projects, pipe dreams, or indulgences.

That is why this article makes two related recommendations.  The first is to pass the Headlee Override requested by city council and recommended by the 12-member Financial Planning Committee so that the city may have the resources needed to meet its duties to the citizens.  The second recommendation is to replace at least three city council persons that have proven their willingness, or compulsion, to spend taxpayer money on frivolous and indulgent projects even when facts and economic conditions urged otherwise.

The immediate issue at hand, however, is May's ballot issue to increase property taxes by 5.4 mills through 2015.  There's is enough time before November to discuss council elections in other articles.

Many pass-the-override advocates point out it may take years to return to 2009's nearly $20 million revenue number.  They're correct in that it will take years to return to that revenue, but they're incorrect in using 2009 as the benchmark against which subsequent years should be measured.

They are wrong because 2009's $19.5 million budget was based on property taxes collected on 2007's inflated property values.  It's important to remember that inflated means the property values were irrational.  They were irrational because Ferndale's property values were not grounded on any objective measure like scarcity of land, Ferndale's location, the performance of its school system, job or population growth.  Instead, like real estate all across America, property values were based on speculation, weak mortgage qualifications, and a similar irrational exuberance that created the Internet Bubble that burst in 2000 and the savings and loan crisis that exploded in 1989.

So to find a rational budget number to begin with it is necessary to look at tax revenues before the housing bubble started; 2002/2003.  Since taxes are collected approximately two years after assessments a better budget year to begin with is fiscal year-ending (FYE) 2005's more modest $17 million ($16,955,150 to be more accurate).

To come up with some a grounded estimation of what our budget should be we can index 2005's budget to the rate of inflation and come up with more rational numbers ($ in millions):

FYE	Inflation	Actual Revenue	"Rational"
2005	2.68%	$16.9552	$16.9552
2006	3.39%	$17.3681	$17.5299
2007	3.24%	$18.7683	$18.0979
2008	2.85%	$19.0812	$18.6137
2009	3.85%	$19.5104	$19.3303
2010	-0.34%	$18.4913	$19.2646
2011	1.64%	$16.8639	$19.5805

So using an inflation-based, rather than an inflated-based projection, this year's budget should have been closer to $19.6 million rather than the $16.7 million it is, which is $2.9 million short of the indexed-to-inflation 2005 budget amount.

State revenue sharing also has a major impact on the city's revenue.  In 2005 Ferndale received $3.2 million, or 18.9% of its budget, from the state.  In 2011 that amount is budgeted to be $2.2 million--40% less than 2005's contribution adjusted for inflation, and only 13% of the budget.

If the numbers in the table above include state revenue sharing, the case for passing the Headlee amendment is only slightly less compelling with those numbers removed.  2005's revenue less state revenue sharing was $13.7552 million.  Adjusted for inflation that number should have been $15.8850 million in 2011, but will only be $14.6639 million, or $1.2 million short of where it rationally belongs.

If, as former city manager Bob Bruner estimated, each mill levied in Ferndale property taxes will generate about $500,000, then non-state-revenue sources are approximately 2.4 mills short.

Coincidentally, May's ballot language calls for limiting the first year's Headlee Override to just three mills.

Citizens created the government and have elected its trustees.  Dissatisfaction with council's earlier spending is, at least in the case of local elections, not a legitimate reason to vote no on the millage increase.  Nor is starving the beast a substitute for electing more fiscally conservative and market-aware  trustees.  Both the city's budget and its council need correcting, but medicine for one is not medicine for the other.  Even if the current council had a better record of fiscal restraint the millage increase would still be necessary.

In May voters should pass the millage.  November may require something different.

Errata
2011-2-24  Mike Shuler pointed out that immediately below the chart, 19.6 - 16.7 = $2.9 million,  not $1.9 million.

---

Inflation calculator
http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Inflation chart
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp

Ferndale Budgets
http://www.ferndale-mi.com/Services/Finance/Overview.htm

Financial Planning Committee's 1/10/2011 Presentation to Council
http://www.ferndale-mi.com/Resources/Agendas/FinancialPlanning/2011/110110Presentation.pdf

Municipal Math

[Note: This article originally appeared in the February 2011 edition of Ferndale Friends] 

In June 2007 council approved approximately $39,500 to repair a section of the screening wall around the Winthington parking lot.  Five months later, DPW director Byron Photiades was back asking for another $30,755.

When council asked why it was so expensive he said something about deteriorating caps, expanding rods and a park bench, but wrapped up by saying, “It may sound expensive, but it’s a really nice wall.”

It’s a really nice wall?

Just last June city council spent over $438,411 on new hardware and software to improve efficiencies. The very next month they spent another $447,930 on office furniture and carpeting one council woman (I won’t say which) thought was necessary to make city hall ADA-compliant (that cost was a relatively modest $21,500 – just 5% of the total).

But it’s really nice furniture.

According to (then) city manager Bob Bruner, the investment would save over $150,000/year in efficiencies and pay for itself in three years.

Of course, those savings didn’t show-up in the budget as expense reductions for the Financial Planning Committee to consider.  Why not?  Because the money was already “saved” when council laid-off staff earlier in the year. You can’t save the same money twice—except perhaps at Enron and Ferndale.

Well, not at Enron anymore.

Somehow, this little double-counting slipped past the Financial Planning Committee when their report commended city council for its efforts and encouraged them to keep it up.

And what, triple-count it?

Two council seats are up in November.  Anyone challenging the incumbents should publicize their ability to do math along-side their endorsements and favorite cities other than Ferndale (one of the tougher questions asked candidates for mayor last month).

If candidates avoid discussing their math skills, maybe someone in the audience at a League of Women Voters-sponsored forum can pass a simple multiplication or division problem on a 3x5 card to the candidates.

Here’s a multiple choice math problem you can write down and save for October.

“Ferndale’s proposed 5.45 millage increase was closer to a) 33% increase in city taxes, b) 10% increase in homestead property taxes,  or c) a drop in the bucket.“


Answers: a and b.  C is a quote from Galloway when he favored passing a Principle Shopping District tax in 2008, perhaps to help pay for the screening wall.

DDA Math

How about a story problem?

“If Ferndale’s DDA gets a National Park Service grant for $120,000 to help pay for 36 way-finding signs and kiosks downtown, how many previously unknown bars, salons, and stores might be discovered?”

Actually, that’s not a math question.  Some business owners suspect DDA staff are the only visitors to Ferndale that need a map, as they’ve never visited their stores.

Let’s try another.

“If Ferndale’s DDA gets a National Park Service grant for $120,000 to help pay for 36 way-finding signs and kiosks downtown, how much money did taxpayer’s save?”

With apologies to Adam Sandler’s Water Boy (1998):

“Mama say [sic] that grant money is from magic rays of sunshine that come down when you feelin' blue.”

The correct answer is it didn’t save them anything.  In fact, those way-finding signs will cost taxpayers more than $120,000 because we (the US government) borrowed $48,000 (40%) to pay for them.  And since we’re barely making interest payments on our debt, your children, grand children, and great grand children will be able to enjoy those signs, kiosks, and historical markers AND still be paying for them long after the DDA director and city council have retired.

Remember that when you pass the signs, kiosks, historical markers, and DDA members.

But the real magic is yet to come.

According to the DDA, the city of Ferndale’s $20,000 contribution toward the $262,254 spent on the signs represents an 1150% return on investment.  (Applause--really!  Don’t take my word for it.  Watch the video yourself from the January 24th council meeting.)

With all the laptop computers on city council’s table it remains a mystery why no one on city council laughed out loud or demanded an immediate audit of the DDA’s books.  Or maybe it’s not a mystery if math isn’t a core requirement for urban planning or law degrees.

Independent calculations aren’t able to duplicate the DDA’s numbers exactly, but using DDA math (not taught in Ferndale Public Schools)  if the city’s $20,000 “investment” earned an 1150% return, then the Woodward Avenue Action Association’s (WA3) $10,000 contribution earned 2300%.

If Cristina Sheppard-Decius, the DDA’s director, had pitched-in $100 of her own money hers would have been a 23,000% return.

(More applause.)

Only Bernie Madoff got those returns for his investors.  Well, not anymore.

The only return the city, WA3, and National Park Service got for their money is 36 signs and kiosks that can’t be exchanged for dollars to help balance the city budget.  The only return they got is that way-finding signs will outnumber sidewalk sandwich boards 2-1, and the DDA didn’t need to apply for a variance to the sign ordinance or pay an annual permit like downtown businesses are required to pay.

But they’re really nice signs.

A little information can cause a lot of damage

On January 21, 2011, I received an email from MoveOn.Org urging I contact my senators and congressman to express outrage over the US Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and to support an amendment to the constitution withholding free speech protections from corporations.


I was going to leave the issue alone until I read a letter-to-the-editor in the Ferndale 115.  It is too late to discourage that letter from being written, but I hope this article at least encourages people to pause before following orders sent them by email, Nigerian princes, or voices in their head.


Everyone that watched President Obama's 2010's State of the Union Address may remember the president exercising his free speech displeasure with the supreme court when he said, 

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations (like this?) –- to spend without limit in our elections.

He was referring to a similar issue (and thorn) that MoveOn.org complains about in their email.

MoveOn actually doesn't believe all corporations should be prohibited from free speech.  MoveOn.Org is itself a corporation--though a not-for-profit 501c3, and presumably wants to preserve free speech for itself.  What they must mean, then, is for-profit corporations should be prohibited from free speech, but that would include companies building green-products like wind turbines and solar panels, growing and selling organic foods, and other corporations that are in good standing with MoveOn.


So what we're left with is they must only want to prohibit free speech from corporations whose interests aren't aligned with MoveOn's and concordingly ACORN, Rainbow Push Coalition, and Common Cause--all non-profit corporations that exploit free speech for their own purposes (OK--not so much ACORN since 11/2010's bankruptcy filing).


The hypocrisy of these non-profit corporations claiming free speech should be prohibited to corporations is the subject of James Tarranto's Wall Street Journal article, Everybody Does It?  Really?

"So here we have a corporation (Common Cause) that advertises itself as a "grassroots organization" while exercising its First Amendment rights to advance the position that corporations do not have First Amendment rights, only individuals do. Some individuals, participating in the corporation's "grassroots" rally, exercise their First Amendment rights in ways that harm the corporation's image. The corporation responds by exercising its First Amendment rights to denounce those individuals for having exercised their First Amendment rights. And it does so in its capacity as a faceless corporation, by issuing a statement for which no individual--not even CEO Bob Edgar--takes responsibility."

Unfortunately, too many people don't appreciate the definitions of either "corporation" or "free speech."


Since 1975's Bigelow v. Virginia ruling, free speech includes commercial speech.    According to seven justices, commercial speech is as precious and valuable to protecting liberty as political speech.  Whether you agree with that decision or not, you can thank that court (sans justices Rehnquist and White) not for raising our appreciation of the contributions advertising has brought to humanity, but for lowering the value of Dr. Martin Luther King's "Now is the time!" to Cialis'® "When the time's right."


So does MoveOn, like Obama, want to reverse 41 years of precedent protecting corporate commercial speech, or just corporate political speech--like MoveOn's?

The day after Snyder's state-of-the-state

Rick Snyder, Michigan's freshly-minted new governor, gave his first state-of-the-date address last night.  Other pundits and politicos have picked the obvious parts.  Here's a few of ones you may hear or read less about, but may have a big impact on residents.

[You can read the entire transcript at the Detroit Free Press]

"I will present a summary of this dashboard in every State of the State address I give. It is composed of 21 different measures in five key areas. The dashboard’s designed to give you information at a glance."

Many corporations' have been using dashboards for years.  As soon as they logon to their computers, or visit their company's internal website, they're presented with charts and graphs that show how well the company in terms of customer service, production, revenue, accounts payable, daily sales outstanding, sales, and other indicators of a company's health and trends.

If true to his word, all interested Michigan residents should be anxious to see how the needles have moved at next year's state-of-the-state address.  Rather than hiding behind spin and rhetoric like so many other politicians have, Snyder is proposing to hang it all out in the open.

This is a good thing.

"...by mid-February, we will present a budget to the Legislature. This is one month ahead of the required deadline. We will present a two-year budget. Our budget will include the elimination of the job-killing Michigan business tax and replace that with a 6%...  I will ask that we strive to complete the budget process by May 31."

My father always told me to do my homework and do it early.

Chapter IX, Section 8 of Ferndale's Charter stipulates our budget must be presented by the first regular council meeting in April.  The good news is that'll be approximate six weeks after the governor will present his version of the budget, so council and the city manager will have time to incorporate any drastic changes to state revenue sharing the city may receive.  The bad news is the budget must be finalized approximately six weeks before the state legislature will approve it.

Unfortunately, our state legislature hasn't a good track-record for finishing budgets on-time.  In recent years, the legislature is still burning the midnight oil around Halloween.  Last minute changes to revenue sharing and school funding have perturbed those budgets shortly after the school year has just started.

Even better news is the budget will be a two-year budget similar to how Oakland County does theirs.  And Deputy Executive Richard Daddow said in a meeting before Ferndale's Financial Planning Committee that the county hopes to go to three-year budgets.  It is partially for this reason that the county is better able to manage its finances and maintain a AAA bond rating.

Let's hope Michigan fairs as well.

"Government reform needs to happen at all levels from townships to cities, from counties to the state, to school districts as well. We need to positively encourage our local jurisdictions, both municipal and school, to move to service consolidation and better deliver value for money. To encourage not only service sharing, but best management practices, we’ll ask that revenue sharing be redone with a significant positive incentive for jurisdictions that adopt best practice."

This is a really big paragraph and it deserves some analysis.

Prima facia, the governor is suggesting that cities and schools should consolidate their services. I can think of no other region in the state as ripe for consolidated services as our little corner of SE Oakland County.

As I wrote about last February, the nine cities and one township that make up this little corner of Oakland County could combine into a single city the size of Livonia, save approximately $9 million dollars in redundant payrolls, and have a population of 192,000.

I'm as fond of my city as the residents of other small cities are of theirs.  The question all 192,000 of us must ask is is our parochiality worth the increased taxes required to deliver services inefficiently?  Are ten city clerks necessary?  Are ten libraries necessary?  Ten managers?  Ten (ok, nine) police departments with chiefs, captains, and the rest?  How about ten city attorneys?

If you were the governor of the state of Michigan, or anyone living outside one of these ten municipalities, would you think each of them was spending their share of state revenue as wisely as a larger city may be?  Does Livonia need nine jails?  Does Troy?  True, their populations are smaller (67,000 and 81,000 respectively) than the new consolidated region, but even extrapolated for population we'd need only a little over twice what those two cities combined would need (four libraries, four jails, and slightly more community centers).

The same would go for our schools.  Instead of two partially-filled high schools unable to afford full-time teachers for slower and faster-learning students or other elective courses, there'd be one high school better-able to afford state-of-the-art equipment and the teachers that know how to use it and fewer administrators eating-up educational dollars before they even reach the classroom.

Now, we don't know what definition Mr. Snyder is using for "best practice," but we can be fairly confident it would not be to break-up any larger city into smaller pieces, or to burden any larger school district into multiple districts--each with their own school boards, administrations, administration buildings, and all the costs and higher property taxes attendant to each.

As wonderful and well managed as Ferndale may be, we wouldn't be the model for other cities.  We may be managed and funded as best we can, and should be proud of that, but are we too proud?

The governor didn't say what carrot he'd use to encourage service consolidation (which isn't the same municipal consolidation), but it's easy to think of the sticks he and the legislature may use.

Not to encourage violence or anything, but let's "beat him to the punch" and get consolidating and regionalizing and sharing on our own terms with our neighboring cities before we're forced to on someone else's (or by an even more desperate property-tax situation).

"We will present a special message on education to the Legislature in April. It’s time to start talking about B-20 instead of just K-12.  We cannot leave children behind without the tools for success in their adult lives, but we also need to encourage better and faster opportunities for children that can go farther and faster in our system."

It's difficult to imagine what the costs would be of adding up-to seven additional years of publicly-financed or subsidized eduction for all Michigan students, or to guess precisely what the governor has planned for the first five years, except that pre-school would be involved--but starting at what age?

Certainly, providing additional years of publicly-funded education would be more easily affordable inside bigger districts with more children, but Ferndale is neither large nor bursting at the seams with children.  Perhaps this kind of funding would be one of the carrots the state might use to encourage consolidation of schools.

If schools don't consolidate, then it may be that those early-education programs simply aren't available in all districts.  If Ferndale isn't one of those districts, then it's a safe bet our student population will continue to fall, and it'll be increasingly harder to attract families (or retain them) to the city.

If our district continues to lose students, then our school board will have to resort to more creative ways to afford the programs for the students it does have.  Already, the district has "diversified" its revenue through adult education and University High, with mostly "trust us" consolations to residents and state regulators when its students' below-average test scores are questioned.

Particularly interesting is the last part of the governor's sentence, ".. we also need to encourage better and faster opportunities for children that can go farther and faster in our system."  If this means more advanced and challenging curricula or making college-credit classes conveniently located on high-school campuses, then I'm all for it.  Passing grades in tougher classes from more highly-regarded school systems can only translate into greater opportunities in college admissions, scholarships, internships, and careers than are available to our best and brightest.  A better educated workforce may keep current Michigan employers from having to look elsewhere, and may entice new employers to come here.

Certainly, it is better for our K-12 or B-20 programs to prepare students for college without the need for remedial classes (which increases the cost of college) than to not.  Better to be honest about our children's academic achievement than to artificially lower-the-bar to increase their self-esteem today at the risk of their futures.  Consequently, lowering-the-bar doesn't just make our kids feel better than they should, but it makes teachers and administrators look better than they should and gives parents a false peace-of-mind.

We should be as concerned about the quality of our education as we are our food supply.  We should pay as much or more attention to the high-school syllabus as we do the ingredient labels of SpaghettiOs.

We'll visit the governor's comments on economic gardening in another article.

Financial Planning Committee meets for last time

As indicated at the public hearing and reported today in the Ferndale Patch, the Financial Planning Committee appointed by council in September will meet for the last time tonight to finalize its January 10 presentation to city council.

One of the things that gets lost in the talk of tax increases is the $8 million in cuts they've proposed over the next five years. Not enough to balance the budget, but cuts have something a tax increase doesn't have--certainty.

The tax increase isn't a sure thing. If voters aren't convinced council will stop spending on discretionary expenses, work as diligently on consolidating services as they do remodeling, and advocate for regional cooperation as much as they do the DDA, I don't see why voters would approve giving them more money--even to fill a hole--to indulge their appetites.

Cost cuts, however, are a sure thing, or can be, and they don't have to wait for an election. Of course, many of the cuts and restrained spending the financial committee will recommend are items council is already aware of and had within their power to act on already.

So maybe even cuts are as uncertain as a tax increase.

Residents need also to be wary of anyone claiming the tax increase is necessary to preserve Ferndale's "quality of life."  Great food is important to my quality of life, but under financial pressure I must cut-back on steaks, pork tenderloins, and lamb chops for more "affordable" fare and eliminate expensive whiskey altogether.

Ferndale faces similar choices.  Does it keep the Kulick Center or not?  Does it keep its own police or not?  Does it operate its own jail or not?  Remember that even if all the preceding (and others) are or-not'ted the city will still have places for seniors to meet, police, and a place to hold suspects--it just may not own them.  Not everything will have a "City of Ferndale" logo on it.  The seniors will still be able to meet at a church but will have to forgo the exercise room; sheriff deputies may patrol our streets instead of our own police (though many may be hired as deputies),  and suspects may be locked-up in Madison Heights rather than downtown Ferndale.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to vote for more fiscal prudence until November, six months after we're asked to increase taxes by a city council that regards itself as "investors."  Investors in totem poles, parking studies, city hall rebuilding studies , surveys, and redecorating.

It's a modified world after all

[Note: This article originally appeared in the December 2010 edition of Ferndale Friends] 

It’s a modified world after all

In mid-November our family visited the new Harry Potter Park at Universal Studios in Orlando.  While waiting in line for one of the rides I noticed a sign that read, “Modified seating, row 3.”

Modified seating?

I searched the internet with my new Droid X (great device) for an explanation.  As expected, we weren’t the first people to notice the sign.  The Orlando Examiner’s Seth Kubersky noticed it, too.  

“Author J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter fiction franchise is the biggest cultural phenomenon to hit the literary world in a decade.  But Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey, the groundbreaking headliner ride at (the park) ran headlong into another major cultural development: the rapid expansion of America’s waistlines.”

For safety reasons, seats that might accommodate “modified” persons are unsafe for “unmodified?” persons as the latter may slip out.  

At 6’4”, I might be considered “non-standard.”  Though the restraints at the rides easily secured me safely in my seat, I noticed none of the head-rests on the rides were high-enough to guard against whip-lash, and my knees frequently knocked the sides of whatever vehicle I was riding in.  But tall people rarely, if ever, invite sympathy.  Tall people can’t blame their height on McDonalds, soft drinks, saturated fats, low metabolisms, or thyroid conditions.  

I was reminded of Universal’s “modified” seating—and the reason for it, when our family hopped on Disney World’s “It’s a small world” ride.  As our boat floated past the 289 animated dolls, 147 toys, and 36 animated props, I made another observation: none of the dolls is fat, or short, or tall. They’re all a uniform height.  In fact, due I’m sure to Disney’s meticulous attention to detail, none of the dolls were handicapped or otherwise not operating according to design.  They’re probably all equally educated and from similar socio-economic backgrounds as well.  Sure, they had different color skin, different clothes, different hairstyles, and the British dolls were easily identified by their bad teeth, but those are superficial differences.  That’s lip-stick diversity.  But it is the kind of diversity that’s easier to promote, accept, and include on questionnaires than diversity of opinion.

But it is a children’s ride after all, and children shorter than 42” can’t be expected to appreciate how superficial the diversity we see is compared to the diversity we hear, read, speak, or write.

But we’re adults.  We shouldn’t think we’ve conquered Everest when the only mole hill we’ve climbed is how people look.  We’ll have arrived at a much better place when we’ve overcome the xenophobia of opinion.

Overcoming that fear doesn’t mean we patronize those we disagree with.  In fact, it means quite the opposite.  It means we engage them in discussions, debates, and yes, even (civil) arguments.

But don’t expect that achievement to be celebrated by others, reported on the news, included in school advertisements, or recognized by advocacy groups.  It is truly its own reward.

Happy Anniversary!

This article marks the anniversary of my first “consolation” column published after Scott Galloway shellacked me in the 2009 election by 78 votes, or 3%.  Not as bad as the pounding Covey gave me two years earlier when a 318-vote margin separated us by 9%.  The good news is, if anyone believes the charter amendment’s success was a reflection of my political sway, it only passed by 2%.  

I’m not a mathematician, but I think this phenomenon (9%, 3%, 2%) is similar to exponential decay: an equation that may approach zero but is forbidden by the laws of mathematics, habit, or handicap from ever crossing the finish line.  If you’re not convinced, grab a calculator and see how many times you can divide any positive number by 3 until it actually reaches zero.  If you’re not sure, keep dividing it until it reaches zero or goes negative.  Write me when you get there.

I bring that up not only because of the anniversary, but because Ferndale was a stand-out when compared to the state election results.

Republican Ruth Johnson beat Democrat Jocelyn Benson for Secretary of State by 5.5%, but lost in Ferndale by 35%.

Republican Bill Schuette beat Democrat David Leyton for Attorney General by 9%, but lost in Ferndale by nearly 34%.

Finally, Republican Rick Snyder beat Democrat Virg Bernero for Governor by 18%, but lost in Ferndale by 19.5%.

Now, Michigan is pretty much a “blue” state, meaning it normally leans toward Democrats.  Though the state as a whole went in the opposite direction, Ferndale stuck to its guns and is so far out of the mean to be bordering on becoming not just a statistical outlier as much as a statistical outcast.  This lopsidedness is reflected in our city council as well.  While many voters may interpret the council’s many 5-0 and 4-1 votes as evidence of what council person Kate Baker describes as collaborative, others see it as uniformity, homogeny, or monotony of thinking.
  

Essentially, Ferndale’s council may have straights, gays, males, and females, but is otherwise absent of diversity of opinion.  Which is to say, it reflects the hegemony of its voters.

We’ll see in January if city council appoints a council person to replace the resigning Mayor Covey that will give it the “new dynamic” it claims to want.  That would be an act of leadership, and that, too, is its own reward.