You just knew the small, self-appointed censors picketing the Victoria’s Secret store in the new Green Oak Village Place mall and the adult video and novelty store in Brighton could not have come up with that idea on their own, and it turns out they didn’t.
Thanks to a fellow progressive blogger, Media Mouse, it has come to my attention that the Victoria's Secret protest is really the brain child of another, larger group of self-appointed censors called the American Decency Association (ADA), located right here in Michigan on the north west side of the state in Freemont.
According to Media Mouse and ADA’s web site, the group “has launched a campaign targeting Michigan malls--including RiverTown Crossings in Grandville--according to research conducted by Media Mouse. The Fremont, Michigan-based ADA has undertaken a campaign targeting Victoria's Secret for what it terms "indecency at the local mall" arguing that the retail chain's window displays, in-store advertisements, and television advertisements are a "threat" to "public decency."”
Boy, does that ever sound like our intrepid group of protectors of our morals from Green Oak Township's Holy Spirit Roman Catholic Church led by church employee Patrick Flynn and Hamburg Township resident Robin Blaszak. What’s really surprising is they had the initiative to actually find the store in Brighton on their own.
But the really sad part is that the Associated Press, TV stations all over the state and even Faux News has picked up on this harebrained Victoria’s Secret protest. With the recent auction of KKK memorabilia last year, this ridiculous protest and the banning of a popular juvenile book last week at Howell High School I wonder what the rest of the civilized and tolerant world thinks of us? What I do know is this group’s 15 minutes of fame is long over.
Showing posts with label Green Oak Village Place mall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Oak Village Place mall. Show all posts
Dec 13, 2006
Dec 5, 2006
Former Brighton Mayor sets the record straight on slanted and false editorial on DDA Bill
Former Brighton City Council Member Kate Lawrence took the time to write a Letter to the Editor to the Daily Press & Argus Monday on its recent editorial aimed at trying to clean up Chris Ward’s image for a future run for a higher political office. Lawrence was the mayor of Brighton when Ward's scam to help a rich developer was attempted, and Ward's fellow Republican also considered a run at the seat Ward currently holds in the House when it was an open seat in 2002.
The editorial in question falsely claims that the change to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Ward sponsored and was approved to benefit just the developer of the new Green Oak Village Place mall would have significantly improved the U.S. 23 off ramp and did away with the hated roundabouts had he not been caught trying to sneak in an amendment at the last minute and had to rescind. The truth is the road, the roundabouts and the bridge would have looked exactly the same if the con had gone forward. The only difference would be the taxpayers would have paid for the improvements that would have benefited the developer.
Lawrence’s letter does not address that issue, but it does address the absurdity of drafting a bill that would benefit the very thing the original act was designed to help failing downtowns compete against.
As one individual member of the Brighton City Council, I wish to respond to your Nov. 24 editorial ("DDA plan would have widened roadway, not built three traffic circles").
Let's start with a little history for your readers. In 2004, state Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton Township, authored legislation that amended the state Downtown Development Authority financing law that allowed DDA financing to be used for specific large-scale commercial development related infrastructure improvements. As a past president of the Michigan Municipal League, I will tell you the legislation as written was bad policy.
You must remember that what Rep. Ward does in Lansing affects our entire state, and not just our little corner of the world. We did communicate to our state representative and the public that the legislation as written could have caused severe negative consequences for the downtowns of all Michigan cities.
The legislation, as originally adopted, created an uneven playing field between cities like Escanaba all the way to Monroe that have very few tracts of undeveloped property within their boundaries vs. neighboring townships that have large tracts of undeveloped land.
It was that specific section that was bad policy for our state.
Brighton did not act alone in lobbying Rep. Chris Ward to get his 2004 DDA-TIFA financing legislation repealed but, rather, we were part of a broad-based Michigan Municipal League-led effort, along with nearby Howell, which also testified at a committee public hearing.
The editorial in question falsely claims that the change to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Ward sponsored and was approved to benefit just the developer of the new Green Oak Village Place mall would have significantly improved the U.S. 23 off ramp and did away with the hated roundabouts had he not been caught trying to sneak in an amendment at the last minute and had to rescind. The truth is the road, the roundabouts and the bridge would have looked exactly the same if the con had gone forward. The only difference would be the taxpayers would have paid for the improvements that would have benefited the developer.
Lawrence’s letter does not address that issue, but it does address the absurdity of drafting a bill that would benefit the very thing the original act was designed to help failing downtowns compete against.
As one individual member of the Brighton City Council, I wish to respond to your Nov. 24 editorial ("DDA plan would have widened roadway, not built three traffic circles").
Let's start with a little history for your readers. In 2004, state Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton Township, authored legislation that amended the state Downtown Development Authority financing law that allowed DDA financing to be used for specific large-scale commercial development related infrastructure improvements. As a past president of the Michigan Municipal League, I will tell you the legislation as written was bad policy.
You must remember that what Rep. Ward does in Lansing affects our entire state, and not just our little corner of the world. We did communicate to our state representative and the public that the legislation as written could have caused severe negative consequences for the downtowns of all Michigan cities.
The legislation, as originally adopted, created an uneven playing field between cities like Escanaba all the way to Monroe that have very few tracts of undeveloped property within their boundaries vs. neighboring townships that have large tracts of undeveloped land.
It was that specific section that was bad policy for our state.
Brighton did not act alone in lobbying Rep. Chris Ward to get his 2004 DDA-TIFA financing legislation repealed but, rather, we were part of a broad-based Michigan Municipal League-led effort, along with nearby Howell, which also testified at a committee public hearing.
Nov 24, 2006
Editorial continues to misrepresent the facts in defense of lawmaker’s tax giveaway
I try hard not to be cynical, but when I see another attempt by the local newspaper to defend sate Rep. Chris Ward and his attempt to give $9 million of taxpayer money to Quadrants, the developer of the Green Oak Village Place mall, for necessary road improvements it’s quite easy. The latest attempt to defend the indefensible appeared in today’s paper, and it makes you wonder why now? Why are you still getting the facts wrong?
We know that the executive editor of this newspaper contributes to the Ward campaign, but this piece is worth more than the cash he gives to the campaign. All it really costs is the integrity of the editorial board, and we know that’s long been compromised.
Here’s some background. The DDA law was established in 1975 to halt the decline of property tax values and deterioration in downtowns. It was also intended to give downtowns a weapon to fight huge shopping malls, like the $100 million Village Place Mall, that were just coming on line in 1975 that had uniform hours, lots of free parking and everything within walking distance. In other words, the law was made to combat the very thing Mr. Ward wanted to pervert the law to benefit.
In 2004 Mr. Ward changed the law – for just one person mind you – that allowed a DDA to expand its boundaries if it was a $100 million project and it did away with the requirement that the property had to have declining property values.
Only when the ruse was called, and it was clear that Livingston County Board of Commissioner would not approve this tax giveaway to a rich developer, did Ward rescind the law made for just one person.
The newspaper got the facts completely wrong, and they should talk to Livingston Country Commissioner Jack LaBelle for the facts. The chair of the Commission and a member for more than 30 years also saw it for what it was, a tax giveaway.
The road, the roundabouts and the bridge would have looked exactly the same if the con had gone forward. The only difference would be the taxpayers would have paid for the improvements that would have benefited the developer instead of the person who would see the profit paying for it. In most other states of the union they have what are called “developer impact fees.” That means the developer must pay fees for the infrastructure and other improvements his development will cause and require. Apparently, here in Michigan the exact opposite is true, and we have taxpayer impact fees, meaning we have to pay for the improvements the developer’s project will require.
Although both the city and county voiced legitimate concerns, the fact remains that the loss of the DDA option did not stop the mall construction. But it does mean that the traffic system is not as good — or as safe — as it could have been.
That's too bad. Despite some misconceptions voiced in the last political campaign, the DDA was not a scheme to cut taxes for the developers of the mall. The developer pays exactly the same property taxes with or without the DDA.
That’s completely untrue. Mike McGonegal, Ward’s opponent in the last election, made it a campaign issue. However, he never once said it was a “scheme to cut taxes for the developers of the mall.” It was a scheme to have the taxpayers pay for something the developer should pay for. There was never any intention from the developer to pay for anything or pledge any money for improvements.
We are still not sure why it's OK to use a DDA to build an expressway ramp in the city of Brighton, but it's somehow not appropriate to use the same funding mechanism to improve the road system just outside the city limits.
I’m surprised that the editorial board is that misinformed, or is that they just think the readers are stupid. DDA’s were developed to keep downtowns healthy, and the law was introduced because many downtown storefronts were being boarded up and abandoned in favor of suburban shopping malls. The law was approved to fight the very thing that the new bastardized DDA law would have helped, huge suburban shopping malls. The fact is townships can form DDA’s, they just have to do it under the law instead of having some friendly lawmaker pervert the law just for them. To form a DDA all you really need is to have some kind of central business district, and property values must be falling. That’s the rub here. They did not have the latter. Enter Mr. Ward.
Perhaps when you are in downtown Howell tonight watching the Fantasy of Lights parade or in downtown Brighton watching the Holiday Glow you will be thankful that things like the DDA Act was passed to protect these jewels we call downtowns. If not, you will be watching parades in some huge, ugly strip mall.
We know that the executive editor of this newspaper contributes to the Ward campaign, but this piece is worth more than the cash he gives to the campaign. All it really costs is the integrity of the editorial board, and we know that’s long been compromised.
Here’s some background. The DDA law was established in 1975 to halt the decline of property tax values and deterioration in downtowns. It was also intended to give downtowns a weapon to fight huge shopping malls, like the $100 million Village Place Mall, that were just coming on line in 1975 that had uniform hours, lots of free parking and everything within walking distance. In other words, the law was made to combat the very thing Mr. Ward wanted to pervert the law to benefit.
In 2004 Mr. Ward changed the law – for just one person mind you – that allowed a DDA to expand its boundaries if it was a $100 million project and it did away with the requirement that the property had to have declining property values.
Only when the ruse was called, and it was clear that Livingston County Board of Commissioner would not approve this tax giveaway to a rich developer, did Ward rescind the law made for just one person.
The newspaper got the facts completely wrong, and they should talk to Livingston Country Commissioner Jack LaBelle for the facts. The chair of the Commission and a member for more than 30 years also saw it for what it was, a tax giveaway.
The road, the roundabouts and the bridge would have looked exactly the same if the con had gone forward. The only difference would be the taxpayers would have paid for the improvements that would have benefited the developer instead of the person who would see the profit paying for it. In most other states of the union they have what are called “developer impact fees.” That means the developer must pay fees for the infrastructure and other improvements his development will cause and require. Apparently, here in Michigan the exact opposite is true, and we have taxpayer impact fees, meaning we have to pay for the improvements the developer’s project will require.
Although both the city and county voiced legitimate concerns, the fact remains that the loss of the DDA option did not stop the mall construction. But it does mean that the traffic system is not as good — or as safe — as it could have been.
That's too bad. Despite some misconceptions voiced in the last political campaign, the DDA was not a scheme to cut taxes for the developers of the mall. The developer pays exactly the same property taxes with or without the DDA.
That’s completely untrue. Mike McGonegal, Ward’s opponent in the last election, made it a campaign issue. However, he never once said it was a “scheme to cut taxes for the developers of the mall.” It was a scheme to have the taxpayers pay for something the developer should pay for. There was never any intention from the developer to pay for anything or pledge any money for improvements.
We are still not sure why it's OK to use a DDA to build an expressway ramp in the city of Brighton, but it's somehow not appropriate to use the same funding mechanism to improve the road system just outside the city limits.
I’m surprised that the editorial board is that misinformed, or is that they just think the readers are stupid. DDA’s were developed to keep downtowns healthy, and the law was introduced because many downtown storefronts were being boarded up and abandoned in favor of suburban shopping malls. The law was approved to fight the very thing that the new bastardized DDA law would have helped, huge suburban shopping malls. The fact is townships can form DDA’s, they just have to do it under the law instead of having some friendly lawmaker pervert the law just for them. To form a DDA all you really need is to have some kind of central business district, and property values must be falling. That’s the rub here. They did not have the latter. Enter Mr. Ward.
Perhaps when you are in downtown Howell tonight watching the Fantasy of Lights parade or in downtown Brighton watching the Holiday Glow you will be thankful that things like the DDA Act was passed to protect these jewels we call downtowns. If not, you will be watching parades in some huge, ugly strip mall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)