Sources say Green Oak Township attorney to be named head of Livingston County Democrats

Inside information says Green Oak Township resident Matthew Evans will be elected the new chair of the Livingston County Democratic Party on Sunday, according to an unnamed source.
Evans, 49, is an attorney who ran for the Livingston County Board of Commissioners last month. He ran a great race, and he came very close to unseating an entrenched and popular incumbent who has held office for 38 years. He lost by a mere 965 votes with 43 percent of the vote.
I don’t know Mr. Evans as well as some of the other people I mentioned earlier who could be candidates, but from what I have seen and heard we will not skip a beat with our march forward.

Michigan’s newly elected House leadership is coming to Livingston County for Meet-and-Greet

Thanks to Matt Ferguson- the editor and creator of the premier political blog in the state, Michigan Liberal – newly elected Speaker of the House Rep. Andy Dillon and Majority Floor Leader Rep. Steve Tobocman will be here in Livingston County for a meet and greet with Michigan’s political bloggers.

The event will be held from 6:30 –7:30 p.m. Thursday Dec. 7 at our party's HQ at 10321 E. Grand River, Suite 600 in Brighton.

They will be speaking about the Democratic agenda for the coming session, and of course they will be answering questions from the attendees. The event was set up for and by bloggers, but the word is no one is checking your ISP at the door.

I’m happy that Matt chose Livingston County for this special event, and not only because I don’t have to drive so far. Many people will remember Matt fondly from his run for the Democratic nomination for the 8th Congressional Seat in the U.S. House, and he still has friends here.

The organizers are not requiring an RSVP, but to help them get an idea how many people plan to attend they are asking you e-mail Matt at news@michiganliberal.com if you plan to attend.

I look forward to seeing you there and showing off our digs. The longstanding and unfunny joke in Livingston County has been the Democrats can hold their meetings in a phone booth, but we have a pretty spacious and attractive phone booth.

Leadership of political parties in Livingston County will change with resignations

I was surprised and disappointed to find out Joe Carney will be stepping down as chair of the Livingston County Democrat Party. I have known Joe since I moved back to Livingston County for good in 2000, and I consider him a friend.
He has served the party well for 13 years, and anyone can see how the party has grown under his leadership. We have our own HQ and the number of volunteers is growing and continues to grow. I, and, the party, will miss Joe, and I hope he stays around to help us out. I know Kathy will still be around as the chair of the 8th Congressional District.
Even though there are big shoes to fill, finding a quality replacement should not be that difficult because there are so many qualified people out there. Just to throw out a few names I know personally who will do a great job include Irene Cahill, Donna Anderson, Bob Alexander, Mary Andersson, Debby Buckland, Anne King-Hudson, one of the McGivney brothers, Jim Swonk or Jan Vogel. Those are just names off the top of my head.
A new chair will be chosen at the party’s annual holiday party Sunday at the party HQ.

On the Republican side, party chair Cindy Pine also stepped down after four years. I personally know Cindy, and I have a lot of respect for her. The names of the possible replacements the Daily Press & Argus is throwing around is rather scary. The extremist wing of the party that was responsible for the shameful judiciary questionnaire put out last summer could seize control of the party. Bill Rogers, the chair of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners, hit the nail on the head when he said the episode may have been a case of extremists taking over the party's agenda. "Extremism doesn't do you any good," he said.
I know Bill personally and respect him, and he’s a class guy. He would be an excellent chair if the county and the party's charters allow it. His leadership would benefit the entire county. But an endorsement by a Democrat will do him no good. From a political standpoint I would prefer to see some of the other candidates mentioned get the job.
Wendy Day, a member of the Howell School Board and a member of the so-called LOVE hate group, was one person mentioned.
For a good laugh check out this paragraph from the article by Dan Meisler: “When asked about the direction of the party, Day said it should keep sight of the "family values" that define Republicans, as well as the limited government and low taxes championed by President Ronald Reagan.” Family values? Is she for real?
Also mentioned was Jay Drick, a member of the GOP exertive committee and a candidate for Livingston County District Judge earlier this month. It was Drick who helped create the much talked about split in the party when the party took the unusual step of endorsing in a nonpartisan race. His campaign lit also put out some false charges about his opponent, Judge Theresa Brennan.
A new chair will most likely be chosen at the party’s convention on Thursday.

Veteran journalist hits the nail on the head on harmful effects of Gerrymandering and Republican spin

Veteran journalist Jack Lessenberry has a unique way of cutting right through the BS and getting straight to the point. For a good example, last summer he called out Chris Ward on his so-called election reform bill, saying it was “the moral equivalent of Monica Lewinsky opening a charter school of chastity. If Chris were in another occupation, he might have a mattress strapped to his back.”
Lessenberry has worked as a foreign correspondent and executive national editor of The Detroit News, reporting from more than 40 countries. His writing has appeared in such national publications as Vanity Fair, Esquire, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Boston Globe. He is also a professor of journalism at Wayne State University, and his freelance columns appear in The Metro Times, The Traverse-City Record Eagle and The Toledo (Ohio) Blade.
He hit another one out of the park today on his blog and radio show on NPR when he addressed gerrymandering and redistricting.

Here’s what the Republican spin on this is. They are saying that this was really a national election. They claim the vote in Michigan was really a vote against the way the war has been going, and also a reaction to corruption in the Republican Congress.
So were the Democratic victories in Michigan an accident?
Not at all. Instead, the media has been hornswoggled into believing Republican propaganda. This was in fact a moderate to liberal landslide. The truth is that the only reason Republicans control anything at all is due to the “accident” of outrageous gerrymandering.
Let’s look at the record. Democrats got a huge majority -- 54.4 percent -- of all the votes cast for state senate. But Republicans won 21 seats; Democrats only 17. How could this happen?
Simple. Five years ago, a Republican legislature and governor approved a plan to crowd all the Democrats into as few districts as possible, and stretch Republicans over as many as possible. This was subject to approval by a GOP-dominated Supreme Court.
They did the same thing in Congressional districts. Democratic congressional candidates got 300,000 more votes than Republican ones. But that translated into nine Republican winners, and only six Democrats. All the Democrats won by more than two to one.

For a local example, just take a look at Livingston County’s two state House districts. Instead of dividing them into a more logical east and west or even north and south configuration it resembles some sort of a big C. The 66th district takes in Milford where nobody there identifies at all with Livingston County, instead of South Lyon, for instance, where some residents are in the Brighton school district and where some Livingston County residents are in the South Lyon school district.

LSJ editorial supports Sunshine Laws and transparency in government

Good job by The Lansing State Journal. The newspaper came out in favor of Sunshine Laws and transparency in government with its editorial against Senate Bill 647. The bill is expected to be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the lame duck session.

The bill states its intent clearly and chillingly: "To restrict the use and disclosure of certain statements made by law enforcement officers."
Here is how this cover-up legislation would work: A police chief suspects that an officer uses excessive force while making arrests or harasses motorists during traffic stops. He questions the officer, whose statements support the chief's belief. Incredibly, what SB 647 seeks is a seal of secrecy of testimony by police officers making it a confidential communication not open to public inspection without the officer's consent.
The motorist who files a harassment complaint or victim of a beating could not learn that the police officer acknowledged these acts. In fact, so sweeping is this measure that if the bad cop sought a job with a different police department, his acknowledgements of beatings and harassment couldn't be shared with the new employer. That is bad policy that weakens Michigan's belief that open government is good government.

The Michigan Press Association has come out against it, and every newspaper in the state should too. Hopefully, every citizen will too. Police officers not only should be held to the same standard as ordinary citizens, but maybe an even higher standard should be in place. Every citizen who supports openness in government should oppose this bill. The argument in support of the bill just does not make sense.

Supporters of the bill say that unlike private citizens who have the right to remain silent when charged with a criminal matter, police officers must testify when ordered to do so by their department. This defense of SB 647 is purposely misleading. Americans have the constitutional right against self-incrimination. But it doesn't apply to their jobs. If an employer suspects that there is theft in the company, it has the right to summon its workers and investigate. Employees refusing to cooperate can be dismissed. They have no special right to refuse questions about wrongdoing. Why are police officers different?

Protest by small band of self-appointed community censors falls flat on its face

The good news is the protest against a recently opened adult video, lingerie and novelties store in Brighton on Friday by a small – and I mean very small – group of self-appointed community censors felt flat on its face.
Despite the good weather, only a handful of protestors, mostly from the congregation of Green Oak Township's Holy Spirit Roman Catholic Church, showed up, according to the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus, and the protest was led and organized by Patrick Flynn, an employee of the church and a former conservative Republican candidate for U.S. Congress for the 8th District. It makes you wonder if the IRS should be taking a look at the church’s charter for its illegal political campaigning.
The small turnout occurred despite the little band of censors getting a front-page preview by the local newspaper. I’m not saying its not news, but for that to make the front page it either had to be a slow news day or they had to reach into the bottom of the barrel because the Thanksgiving holiday left them without a lot of copy.

With signs stating, "Pornography is an enemy of the family," they walked alongside a busy Grand River Avenue on one of the busiest shopping days of the year to alert residents about what they consider a destructive seed being planted in their community, the opening of Intimate Ideas. The store, located at the intersection of Cross Street and Grand River Avenue, opened last week.

I guess the fact there is absolutely no link between sexual assault and pornography is not going to stop then for distorting the truth. Besides, it makes for a good slogan on a sign.

Members of this grass-roots group said they fear this store would cause other stores that sell pornography to sprout up in the Brighton area.

They believe it will be the beginning of a “red-light district.” If so, it will be one of the few in the entire nation.

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.

They’re back: Small-minded group aims to censor another Livingston County business

They’re back.

The same small-minded people who brought you the ridiculous protest against the Victoria’s Secret store are back with a new protest and picket. The intended victim this week is a new adult video, lingerie and novelties store that just opened last week in Brighton.

The grass-roots group plans to picket outside Intimate Ideas on Friday afternoon. The store, located in a small strip mall at Grand River Avenue and Cross Street, also sells adult toys.
"The bottom line is it's pornography," said Hamburg Township resident Robin Blaszak. "It's treating the body as merchandise, not as something to be respected."
Blaszak and Patrick Flynn, both members of Green Oak Township's Holy Spirit Roman Catholic Church, have sent out letters and e-mails to Brighton-area churches asking them to participate in the protest. In the letter, the group asks residents to join and "exercise our constitutional rights to publicly demonstrate our displeasure in the establishment and location of this business."

I just hope that every sane person who loves freedom and choice goes to the store and buys something and supports this storeowner against these small-minded people who want to tell you and I what we can and cannot see, hear and buy.

Flynn said there are studies that show pornography is detrimental to families and often a factor in cases involving abuse of women and children.
Flynn said he's worried about the cumulative effect of businesses like this moving into the community.
"Is this the beginning of a red-light district in Brighton?" he asked. "Some may say that's an extreme thing to say."
I challenge Mr. Flynn to produce one of the so-called studies he cites to support his ridiculous claim. There is absolutely no link between legal pornography and violence against women and children.

But the most outrageous claim Mr. Flynn makes is it will spur a “red light district.” I suggest Mr., Flynn get out more and actually visit some more diverse areas than Livingston County. He will find there simply is no such thing as a “red-light district” anymore. I have lived all over the country in some very urban areas, and there are simply none of these so-called “red light districts.” However, he is correct when he says it’s an “extreme thing to say,” but we are used to that kind of extreme thing from Mr. Flynn.

I have lived in San Diego, Norfolk, Charleston, SC. and Jacksonville, Fl., and none of these cities have a “red-light district.” These are Navy towns where literally thousands of young, single men live far from family and friends who might frequent a “red-light district” if there was such a ting. Maybe they can come to Brighton to frequent the one here.

I suggest Mr. Flynn and Ms. Blaszak find something constructive to do with the obvious free time they have on their hands.