Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[jas49503]

I think that the sidewalk repair is much more important than plowing which would need equipment and staff for what is going to be a very sporadic event.  Sidewalk repair now only really occurs when homes are sold but if someone holds onto their property the sidewalks could deteriorate very badly. It makes sense to separate home sales from sidewalk repairs since the two are not temporally related.

[GRDadof3]

I still miss the point. Your complaint is about low turnout presumably not being sufficiently representative in character. Actually the results are fairly straight-forward: the west side (Ward 1) and the wealthy precincts on the fringe of the City oppose; Ward 2 modestly supports, Ward 3 strongly supports. This pattern of support is long-standing in the city, and it scales. Nay votes in 2012 (9 % voting): Ward 1, 59%; Ward 2, 47%; Ward 3, 42%. In 2010 (15% voting): Ward 1, 56%; Ward 2, 47%; Ward 3, 47%.

 

Votes on both sides do tend to cluster. For instance Ottawa Hills is strongly on the pro side, and Ward 1-21 (the far northwest corner) is sharply negative.

 

Every election has a certain amount of sort to it. Civic elections like this attract one kind of voter, a state election a bit different (typically older, more conservative), a national electorate younger with more minority votes. Yes, the tax conservative may prefer one to the other, but that is all that it is, a preference, and frankly, a political one at that.

 

In every election, the rule is the same: if you want to win, do the work.

Does the proposal really include plowing the sidewalks?

 

I re-read the FAQ from the City, I can't find anything about the plowing part. What is clearly being funded is the repair of the sidewalks -- the way the roots from the parking-strip maple are popping up the sidewalk out front. Just taking that off the table would be a big help for a lot of home owners. Plowing? that would be a huge ongoing expense, and not one that could be covered by a time limited tax increase.

 

Maybe it doesn't include sidewalk clearing. A post on the Salon page led me to believe that it does, but perhaps "maintenance" of the sidewalks just means they'll be repaired/replaced along with the streets?

 

As I said, a google search for "Grand Rapids streets tax" only returns a couple of Mlive articles that don't spell everything out very well and that Prezi that was posted to the Sustainable Streets Task Force back in August last year (the last time anything was posted there). No other sites or information portals.

[x99]

FWIW, the proposal does NOT include sidewalk plowing.  This is made clear in, I believe, the working group report.  Only maintenance of the physical sidewalk surface itself would be covered.  Given that a full 17% of the money would go to sidewalks, I suspect a good chunk of it is not really for maintenance, but for installing sidewalks where none currently exist, such as along 28th street.  I'm sure we would also spend a couple million on an outside sidewalk "audit" to figure out where to spend the money.  Currently, sidewalks are fixed when either a property is sold or a complaint is made.

 

It isn't that a using an income to to fix the roads is necessarily a bad idea.  The alternative is property tax derived revenues.  In the grand scheme of things, the income tax is probably more equitable when it comes to making users pay (although the seniors banging up our roads with their Cadillacs seem to get a free pass).   The whole problem with the proposal is threefold:  1)  It reaffirms that Grand Rapids has not been and will not be fiscally managed as well as surrounding areas which manage to fix their roads with comparable millage rates and no income tax; 2) it reaffirms to high income earners that Grand Rapids is not the place for them because of the significant income tax penalty vis-a-vis alternative choices; and 3) the nebulous language of the proposal lends itself to significant abuse.  No one at the City level has ever said how the funds would actually be spent, and on what, other than spewing inscrutable "vital streets" nonsense.

Edited March 17, 2014 by x99

[arcturus]

I think it should be illegal to hold votes for taxes/millages on such odd dates. It isnt a big secret why the city did this. They wanted a quick vote on a date that they hope would generate a low turn-out. It's sleazy, and has turned me off completely to the vote No side even though the roads are a mess. I wont participate in rewarding this type of thing. Hold it in the November of congressional and presidential election years and stop playing games. Stuff like this will lead to noting but bitterness and major distrust between people and city hall. Lately it seems like they have done a pretty good job of alienating people almost every week.

 

Bingo!  Well said.

[arcturus]

In every election, the rule is the same: if you want to win, do the work.

 

And time it in a manner which makes the work more all the more difficult.  It's no wonder the public is upset when public apathy is contrived as a tool for municipal governance.  

[x99]

What is particularly offensive is the flouting of election law by the City.  The text of the statute is clear and unambiguous.  MCL 168.646a(2) states:  "If a local ... ballot question is to be voted on ... the ballot wording of the ballot question shall be certified to the local or county clerk at least 70 days before the election..." (or 68 days in certain circumstances). Subsection (3) then states that the "provisions of this section apply notwithstanding any provisions of law or charter to the contrary..." unless another rule requires an earlier certification.

 

The City has, to my knowledge, always followed this rule, and here attempted to follow it, in fact filing half the ballot questions that they meant to.  They screwed up, and now instead of admitting the error and rescheduling, claim that the law they have always followed actually means other than it says.  That somehow, through some clever sleight of legislative hand, "local" does not actually mean local. 

 

Well.  Pardon me the next time I drive 90 miles an hour down Ottawa past City Hall because, in my book, 35 actually means 90.

 

What the City had was a proposal that many could have supported had they not engaged in boiler room politics from start to finish, from drafting to balloting to anticipated  implementation.

 

Shameful.

 

I do hope the roads are fixed, and would support a fairly worded and passed temporary tax to do so.  But I cannot support this.

Edited March 18, 2014 by x99

[GRDadof3]

And time it in a manner which makes the work more all the more difficult.  It's no wonder the public is upset when public apathy is contrived as a tool for municipal governance.  

 

I think people are actually apathetic to apathy.

 

Anyone know what the average turnout is in the Fall elections in Grand Rapids? Compared to a May election?

 

Ah, here it is. Looks like it has ranged between 8 - 14% in the November elections.

 

http://therapidian.org/why-we-dont-vote-and-why-we-should

 

So people are claiming that the vote won't be legitimate because the pathetically low voter turnouts in GR will be even more pathetically low?

[arcturus]

I think people are actually apathetic to apathy.

 

Anyone know what the average turnout is in the Fall elections in Grand Rapids? Compared to a May election?

 

Ah, here it is. Looks like it has ranged between 8 - 14% in the November elections.

 

http://therapidian.org/why-we-dont-vote-and-why-we-should

 

You missed this part ...

 

'In the presidential election in November 2012, the turnout was significantly higher in the city: 61 percent or 81,616. However, an average of over 7% of those voteres didn't go on to select their state representative or GRPS school board, or vote on proposals concerning the comptroller or marijuana decriminalization.'

 

Pretty hefty 54%.  Show me those numbers in May.  Nothing like weed to get out the vote as opposed to a mayoral contest with a weak opponent

Edited March 18, 2014 by arcturus

[x99]

Curiosity killed the cat.  I bothered to read the City's brief, and it is absolutely shameful, from a public policy perspective.  In my opinion, many of the arguments that are made there are a rather ugly stain on those in the City advocating them.  Let's boil it down. 

 

The first big argument by the City is this:  Courts can't enjoin an illegal election, and since this is the only thing on the ballot, removing the question from the ballot basically cancels the election.  So, please, please fall for our argument that those plaintiffs want to enjoin the election.  Please ignore any other prior cases having to do with ballot questions, where citizen challenges are routinely upheld.  Even if this ballot question is in violation of the law, too bad, so sad, the election should go on and the results should be respected.

 

Crimea, anyone? 

 

The second big argument is this:  Assuming that the law should stand in our way and you should have the nerve to enforce it, the law does not really mean what it says because two other laws that deal with the printing of ballots and some random law dealing with townships (which we, uh, aren't) somehow conflict with it.  Oh, and lots of other government people say we should be able to get away with this under the statute which, by the way, is really, really long, which means we should pay lots of attention to these government people.  In short, you should very, very artfully construe the statute not to apply to strictly local elections, even though the statute says that. 

 

I read and re-read the argument about the conflict, and I can't make heads or tails of it.  [EDIT [03/19/14]:  Matt Vande Bunte has a good article over at mLive summarizing the City's claim that there is a conflict in the statute:  http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/03/judge_to_decide_thursday_if_gr.html#incart_river  Notice what is missing:  Any explanation of what the conflict actually is. It was not explained in their brief, and I doubt it was clearly explained during arguments.  Why?  When all else fails, gin up an illegitimate conflict so that you can convince a judge to warp a statute for you.  It will be interesting to see if the Judge can divine this fantasy conflict.]   Likewise, the argument that the county "has no interest" in a purely local election is frivolous:  So what?  The statute still says it has to be certified.  Just because a requirement may seem pointless does not mean it does not need to be met. 

 

Kolenda on behalf of the City argues there is no "harm" if the election goes forward.  Nonsense.  How about respect for the rule of law, even if the purpose of the law is not immediately apparent to those who failed to comply with it?  That the City (and a former judge arguing on their behalf) are actually standing up in open court arguing that the rule of law is something to be casually disregarded so long as we like the result is astonishing to me. 

 

Jeff Steinport, in my opinion, did a bang-up job in his brief for someone not that long out of law school.  His brief, while not quite as polished in spots as Kolenda's with all the might of Dickinson Wright behind it, is very clearly reasoned, has excellent citation to relevant authority, and in my opinion out-argues the City at almost every turn.  Points for creativity to the City, I suppose. 

 

Even if Judge Buth goes in the City's favor, I still have to hand it to Steinport.  He did a fine job, for all of us.  Kudos to him for taking on the juggernaut. 

Edited March 19, 2014 by x99

[GRDadof3]

You missed this part ...

 

'In the presidential election in November 2012, the turnout was significantly higher in the city: 61 percent or 81,616. However, an average of over 7% of those voteres didn't go on to select their state representative or GRPS school board, or vote on proposals concerning the comptroller or marijuana decriminalization.'

 

Pretty hefty 54%.  Show me those numbers in May.  Nothing like weed to get out the vote as opposed to a mayoral contest with a weak opponent

 

That was a presidential election. Even this November won't be a presidential election.

 

I would have more respect for the Jeff Steinports and Eric Larsons if they didn't cloak their civil rights fight under the guise of "no tax is a good tax." But in all fairness, if the city didn't file in time, they should move it back. All's fair in love and war. A dangerous precedent would be set if the election moves forward because of legalese. Then other groups could put something on the ballot merely weeks before the elections.

[x99]

That was a presidential election. Even this November won't be a presidential election.

 

I would have more respect for the Jeff Steinports and Eric Larsons if they didn't cloak their civil rights fight under the guise of "no tax is a good tax." But in all fairness, if the city didn't file in time, they should move it back. All's fair in love and war. A dangerous precedent would be set if the election moves forward because of legalese. Then other groups could put something on the ballot merely weeks before the elections.

 

Agreed.  Some taxes are necessary when you're running a city.  And I do think this one has the potential for doing the job if the City had appropriately handcuffed itself with regard to use of the funds, which it didn't. 

 

FWIW, the funny thing is that there actually is a potential "conflict" that the City missed, and which was a much better argument.  I'm not about to toss them a bone, though.  Suffice to say I have think Jeff Steinport knows exactly what it is, too.  It still wasn't a great argument, but better than they made. 

 

Personally, I would like to see the streets get fixed, and a personal income tax isn't the worst idea to fund it.  A couple hundred bucks, tops, for most families in the City--a far cry from what vehicle repair costs due to poor roads probably cost.  However the roads get fixed, I hope someone has the smarts to stand up and say, "We screwed up with the crummy language in the proposal, we screwed up the off-cycle election date, and we screwed up trying to paper over our screw ups.  We'll do better, and fix this."  Even if this this passes and the roads get fixed, it's still a colossal leadership failure.

[GRDadof3]

Agreed.  Some taxes are necessary when you're running a city.  And I do think this one has the potential for doing the job if the City had appropriately handcuffed itself with regard to use of the funds, which it didn't. 

 

FWIW, the funny thing is that there actually is a potential "conflict" that the City missed, and which was a much better argument.  I'm not about to toss them a bone, though.  Suffice to say I have think Jeff Steinport knows exactly what it is, too.  It still wasn't a great argument, but better than they made. 

 

Personally, I would like to see the streets get fixed, and a personal income tax isn't the worst idea to fund it.  A couple hundred bucks, tops, for most families in the City--a far cry from what vehicle repair costs due to poor roads probably cost.  However the roads get fixed, I hope someone has the smarts to stand up and say, "We screwed up with the crummy language in the proposal, we screwed up the off-cycle election date, and we screwed up trying to paper over our screw ups.  We'll do better, and fix this."  Even if this this passes and the roads get fixed, it's still a colossal leadership failure.

 

Yes, and by the way it was an $80,000 screw up.

 

The roads absolutely need new funding sources. I can't imagine how anyone thinks that the roads are okay as they are, or that it can continue that way.

[arcturus]

If the judge rules that the election can't be held, any bets it will come up next May instead of November?

[x99]

Buth ruled that it stays on and that the City did not have to report to the County. Mlive (in the comments) reports as follows:  "Buth cited the section below. Basically, he said it doesn't make sense to make Grand Rapids certify the ballot wording to Kent County if this part of election law gives the city the responsibility to prepare, print and deliver ballots [...] [MCL] 168.719 [...] The election commission of each city, township and village s..."

 

Try to follow along with that argument, and good luck. The section in question says absolutely nothing about certification of a ballot question.  It deals solely with preparation, printing, and delivery of ballots that ought to have only properly certified questions upon them.  For better or worse, Steinport is right.  So much for that certification requirement that every municipality has followed for decades and which, until this, every sane person thought was the law. 

 

Anyone want to take bets how long it takes for the appeal to get filed?  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Edited March 20, 2014 by x99

[arcturus]

Noticed the rail spur from the new station now ends where Buchanan curves.  Y connection huh?  Guess that means the train will back up before going forward for the duration, or go forward before backing up depending which direction your seat points.  

[GR8scott]

yeah I wished they could have utilized that little spur between the buildings and would have made sense for a turnaround as well. 

[arcturus]

Regarding the streets tax proposal - if I have a large tree buckling my sidewalk and the city is now responsible for maintaining it (16% budged for it), can I assume they have the power to take whatever action necessary to correct the issue which includes removing the tree and possibly billing me for the cost of removal?

[GRDadof3]

Regarding the streets tax proposal - if I have a large tree buckling my sidewalk and the city is now responsible for maintaining it (16% budged for it), can I assume they have the power to take whatever action necessary to correct the issue which includes removing the tree and possibly billing me for the cost of removal?

 

Isn't that how it works now? I've heard if you sell a home in Grand Rapids they do a sidewalk assessment and you can be billed for any repairs needed. Is that true?

[joeDowntown]

Yup! We had to have 5 sections of concrete replaced before selling our house in GR. The city did the work and billed us.

 

Joe

[arcturus]

So if the proposal passes the city will, by default, assume more liability since they're empowered to maintain it.  Since they're on the hook wouldn't it be reasonable to assume some sidewalks will require immediate attention to limit that liability as opposed to waiting until the property sells? 

[Fester]

Remaarks concerning the new train station:

 

One station track will be in place at first, the other will be added later.

 

The new signal system's last project, the "Grand Rapids Terminal SUbdivision", is being worked on now. Photograph the old Godfrey cantilever signal bridge from the 1930's now, if you're into that kind of thing. I was told this (nothing in print, so don't quote me), that there'll also be an "Amtrak signal".

 

The PM (today) either rolls in on the West leg of the eye, or proceeds past the wye to Pleasant Street signal, gets an approach signal, then backs down the main line, changes tracks (either to or from), and takes the east leg of the wye to the sattion. The extra distance is a safety thing; CSX won't allow a passenger to back up without a signal  to tell it to do so. After unloading, it moves to Fuller Junction for overnight storage.

 

With the new station, the train will roll down to Pleasant Street, get the proper signal, then back into the station, and stay overnight. Process reversed in the morning when it leaves.

 

Station has a real platform, so it won't be such a climb to board the train. Second track will be added when there's a need for two trains on the property at tgeh same time.

 

Someone said something about the old siding; the curved pavement scars on Century are from the old "Union Station Leads" that went to the station (duh) and the Less-Car-Load warehouses. It would have been too sharp of a curve there at Century, plus the right-of-way is blocked by a large building at the elad's West end, and also by the West wye that's used by ConRail/Norfolk Southern to get to scrap metal businesses by Wealthy West of the river.

 

As an aside, if you stand on Wealthy at the scrapyard, there's one spur track that's absolutely straight for a fair distance. It's one of the last reamaining pieces of intact rail from the old Interurban system. I'd check the rails and find/record the rolling marks on the sides, but I have this phobia about getting arrested. If original, it's over 100 years old.

[Fester]

Two switches delivered to the area, waiting to be installed. One at Buchanan and the tracks where it turns 90dergrrs, and another one closer to the tower.

[metrogrkid]

FINALLY!!  Examining what will be the outcomes of connecting Michigan's two largest metro areas by commuter rail to their state capitol area in between....

 

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Michigan-to-study-Holland-Detroit-passenger-rail-5564852.php

[wingbert]

Apologies if this was already covered.  If you haven't see the new Silver Line buses, well... they are definitely buses.  The Rapid really went out of their way to ensure that nobody mistook them for something too innovative.  Probably best to ease into this rapid transit stuff for staid old Bland Rapids.

 

silver-line-first-look

[organsnyder]

Apologies if this was already covered.  If you haven't see the new Silver Line buses, well... they are definitely buses.  The Rapid really went out of their way to ensure that nobody mistook them for something too innovative.  Probably best to ease into this rapid transit stuff for staid old Bland Rapids.

 

silver-line-first-look

They're okay. I really won't care too much what they look like while I'm riding in them.