Mark Maynard | 2010 | October

Is there cause to reconsider the Ypsilanti City Charter?

By Mark | October 25, 2010

In addition to having the Keep Ypsi Rollin’ transit millage on the ballot next week, local folks will have an opportunity to weigh in on whether or not now would be a good time to convene a Charter Commission to revise the City Charter. Following is the language of the ballot initiative.

CITY OF YPSILANTI
PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL REVISION OF THE CITY CHARTER

Shall a Charter Commission be established with the purpose of writing a general revision of the Ypsilanti City Charter for submission or approval of the voters in accordance with the provisions of Michigan Law?

This, as I understand it, is on the ballot because Article 11.7 of our existing Charter requires it to be voted on every eight election cycles (sixteen years). This, I’m told, is the first time since our current Charter was adopted that it has appeared on the ballot.

Here, by way of background, is Article 11.7 of our current charter:

The question of whether there shall be a general revision of the City Charter shall be submitted to the voters of the City of Ypsilanti at the 8th general City election after the effective date of this Charter and at every 8th general City election thereafter and may be submitted at other times in the manner provided by law. Members of the Commission shall be elected at the same time as the vote on the question.

And, here, is a letter on the subject that I just received from Councilman Pete Murdock (reprinted with his permission):

To my knowledge there is no groundswell of support to have a revision of the Charter, but there has been some confusion to why this is on the ballot. Prior to the August primary, former Mayor Cheryl Farmer and former Councilmember John Gawlas as part of the mayoral campaign were spreading the rumor that I had “secretly” put this on the ballot so we could have a strong Mayor system with me as Mayor. The logic of this argument escapes me, but as you know, in politics you can say anything. Of course Cheryl should have known better, since she was an influential member on the Charter Commission that proposed our existing Charter with this provision in it.

In any event, I don’t think there is any effort to revise the Charter, but you might better ask those who are running for the Charter commission of what their motives and intentions are. At one of the forums that Paul and I appeared at, we were asked about the issue and we both expressed opposition to a Charter revision (as well as the State Con-Con for similar reasons.)

I don’t see any need for a Charter Revision Commission, there is more to be lost than gained by convening one. I am voting NO on the issue and urging others to do so also.

Perhaps you could get a discussion or at least an awareness of the issue started.

So, let’s start a discussion… Does anyone out there think it’s necessary to initiate a Charter Revision Commission? And, if so, why?

Posted in Politics, Ypsilanti | Tagged Article 11.7, bus service, busses, Charter Commission, Charter Revision Commission, Cheryl Farmer, City Charter, Headlee Override, John Gawlas, Keep Ypsi Rollin', Mayoral politics, Pete Murdock, public transit | 21 Comments

Astroturf wars, and the battle to defund NPR

By Mark | October 25, 2010

The following video, taken last year during a training session for Tea Party activists in Nashville, is of a young man from a group called the American Majority. His name is Austin James, and, on the video, he can be seen instructing folks how they should go about waging guerilla warfare online by, among other things, poorly reviewing “liberal” books and films they’ve neither read nor seen. The American Liberty Tour, of which this session was a part, was funded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch.

I know it’s not exactly scandalous to urge people to give bad reviews to books that they’ve never read. I do find it interesting, however, that wealthy individuals, like the Koch brothers, who have a vested interest in keeping people from, among other things, fighting for more stringent environmental protection standards, have been so damned successful in building this network of teabots to do their bidding both online and off. It’s really brilliant, and I was reminded of it today, when reading about the organized onslaught against National Public Radio in the wake of the Juan Williams firing. I was particularly struck by this sentence in the New York Times: Of the thousands of complaints that have saturated NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’s firing earlier this week, some of the most telling have been from callers describing themselves as long-time “viewers” of NPR who warn that they are going to “stop watching.”

Of course, NPR has no viewers, as it’s distributed via radio. But the teabots wouldn’t know that.

As for Williams, I don’t care for the guy, and I find it telling that he’s crawled off to join the ranks of the pseudo-journalists at FOX News, but I think that his firing was wrong. It wasn’t right when the Shirley Sherrod was forced out of her job due to a few quotes taken out of context, and it’s not right here, just because I don’t like the man. The worst part is, it’s giving the far right ammunition to go after NPR, which, like it or not, is one of the last real bastions of journalism in the United States… Here’s hoping they pull though.

Posted in Media, Politics | Tagged Amazon, American Liberty Tour, American Majority, astroturf, Austin James, book reviews, Juan WIlliams, Koch brothers, manipulation of the stupid, movie reviews, National Public Radio, Shirley Sherrod, stop watching NPR, tea party, teabots, the future of journalism, the sad state of journalism | 10 Comments

Ann Arbor – Detroit passenger rail… Can Dingell deliver?

By Mark | October 24, 2010

According to an article just published in Crain’s, it looks as though we should find out in a few days whether or not the Federal Rail Administration will be coming forward to invest $200 million in the Ann Arbor – Detroit commuter line that we’re all so anxious to see happen. Here’s a clip:

…The Federal Rail Administration money (via the second round of funding set aside for high-speed rail projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) would be used to build new sidings, signals and make other corridor improvements, said Carmine Palombo, director of transportation planning for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments regional planning agency.

“It would eliminate the conflict between freight and passenger trains,” he said.

The 48-mile rail project, which would start with four daily round trips, is a joint effort by SEMCOG and the Michigan Department of Transportation and could be operational — if it gets the money — by the end of 2011, Palombo said.

“Probably the most optimistic scenario is the end of next year,” he said.

Amtrak will be contracted to operate the service.

Palombo gave backers an update on the project today.

A $12 million MDOT project to eliminate a bottleneck east of Dearborn where two tracks merge into one line is scheduled to begin in the spring, he said.

That’s expected to trim five to seven minutes off the trip, making it about 50 to 55 minutes. Stops will be at Detroit, Dearborn, near Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Work is under way on the federally required environmental assessment.

Three locomotives and nine passenger cars have been leased from Great Lakes Central Railroad, which is owned by Farmington Hills-based Federated Capital Corp., and are in the process of being refurbished and painted, Palombo said…

When the regular service begins, fares could run $6 to $8 for the full trip between Detroit and Ann Arbor, or $1.50 to $2 between stations. Those numbers could change by the time the service begins, Palombo said.

I don’t know what we can do to make it happen at this late date, but I imagine it wouldn’t hurt to drop Congressman Dingell a line and let him know how much local passenger rail would mean to Ypsilanti. Given how close his race has been these past few weeks, it seems like he’d be super motivated to demonstrate to everyone in the district that he’s still able to bring home the proverbial bacon. But, I’m sure he’s already on it, in hopes of getting one more big press release before election day.

While we’re on the subject of Dingell and his reelection bid, here’s a clip from the Wall Street Journal.

Michigan’s Rep. John Dingell, currently the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, says he isn’t worried about losing the seat that has been in his family since the Great Depression. But a marked change in his campaign spending patterns and a volley of negative ads against his opponent suggest otherwise.

Like many other wary Democrats in races around the country, Rep. Dingell is spending more of his campaign money on himself and sharing far less with other candidates. In the 2008 campaign cycle, Rep. Dingell raised $2.7 million, giving away 30% of that money to Democratic Party efforts and Democrats running for office elsewhere, according to Federal Election Commission filings. This year, with a wealthy doctor nipping at his heels, Rep. Dingell raised $1.5 million through Sept. 30, and has given away 3% of that total to others.

Observers also took the arrival Sunday of former President Bill Clinton as a sign of Democrats’ worries about the 84-year-old congressman first elected in 1955. The two appeared together Sunday night before about 1,000 people in an auditorium at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

To be sure, the latest poll showed Dingell ahead by 17 points—after being tied in a poll two weeks earlier with his Republican opponent, cardiologist Rob Steele—but the incumbent’s shift in campaign strategy is the latest evidence that Democrats are struggling to win over Michigan voters, Despite being buoyed by federal government support through stimulus programs and the bailouts of General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC, the public here appears increasingly skeptical of incumbents, no matter their past prowess in Washington…

Here’s hoping we win on both counts; keeping John in Congress, and getting local rail.

Posted in Ann Arbor, Detroit, Politics, Rail, Sustainability, Ypsilanti | Tagged American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Amtrak, Ann Arbor - Detroit rail, bailout, Big 3, Bill Clinton, Carmine Palombo, Dearborn, Dingell, election, Federal Rail Administration, Michigan Department of Transportation, Rail, Rob Steele, SEMCOG, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Ypsilanti train depot | 33 Comments

My First Tat Gun

By Mark | October 24, 2010

So, am I just a being an old man, or is this a really bad idea?

I wonder if it comes with a little, My First Case of Hep-C prescription bottle full of candy.

On the bright side, it could be worse. At least they don’t show little girls getting “tramp stamps” above their butt cracks, or kids tattooing their faces like Mike Tyson.

So, if not here, where do you draw the line? Is a pole dancing kit for kids OK? After all, I’m told it’s good exercise.

Posted in Other | Tagged activities for kids, face tattoos, hepatitas, kids grow up too fast, kids today, Mike Tyson, people who will one day regret getting a tattoo designed by Mark, pole dancing, strippers, tattoos, tramp stamps | 16 Comments

Voting out the sane Republicans

By Mark | October 24, 2010

It’s good to be reminded on occasion that there are sane, responsible Republicans… We were in the car last night, on our way to have dinner with friends in Detroit, when we caught an NPR report on how the upcoming elections are likely to affect climate change legislation, and I was really struck by how sane and responsible Republican Congressman Bob Inglis came across on the issue. Unfortunately, bright, responsible Republicans are a dying breed in Washington. Inglis, for instance, recently lost his primary bid to a challenger with the backing of the Tea Party. Here’s a clip from the report.

A Conservative Who Spoke Up — And Paid The Price

It’s a big deal for Republicans in Congress to say they believe that humans are heating the planet.

“People look at you like you’ve grown an extra head or something,” says Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina.

Inglis has represented South Carolina’s 4th District for the last 12 years, but this one will be his last.

In June, Inglis lost the primary bid to Tea Party-backed Republican candidate Trey Gowdy, who accused him of not being conservative enough.

For the longest time, Inglis says, education, health care issues and the environment have been Democratic issues, while taxes and national security have been Republican issues. Inglis says that’s not right.

“As a Republican, I believe we should be talking about conservation, because that’s our heritage. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, that’s who we are.”

Inglis paid the price for speaking out about the importance of conservation and climate change.

He admits he may have “committed other heresies,” such as voting for TARP and against the troop surge. “But the most enduring problem I had, the one that really was difficult, was just saying that climate change was real and let’s do something about it.”

Inglis, who also voted no on cap-and-trade, tried to make climate change palatable for conservatives. He proposed a revenue-neutral tax swap: Payroll taxes would be reduced and the amount of that reduction would be applied as a tax on carbon dioxide emissions — mainly hitting coal plants and natural gas facilities.

Inglis also tried to connect the issue of climate change with the issue of national security. “We are dependent on a region of the world that doesn’t like us very much for oil. We need to change the game there.”

Inglis even stressed the need to hold the oil and coal companies accountable for their environmental practices.

Accountability, he says, “is a very bedrock conservative concept — even a biblical concept.”

Even though Inglis won’t be coming back to the Hill to serve another term, he hasn’t lost hope in climate change policy. The choice, Inglis says, is clear.

“Do we play to our strengths? Or do we continue to play to our weakness — which is playing the oil game.”

I’ve mentioned it here before, but 19 of 21 Republican candidates for Senate this election cycle either deny the existence of global warming, or maintain that the burning of fossil fuels does not play a role. (And many of them are getting big campaign contributions from BP and the Koch brothers as a result.) As most young people seem to know that global warming is real, and that we need to transition away from foreign oil, one wonders if there’s still going to be a Republican party in another ten years.

Speaking of NPR, I’ve got my issues with the network, but I certainly don’t think that we should allow Republican extremists the likes of Sarah Palin and Jim Demint to use the recent Juan Williams mess to see the organization’s federal funding stripped. The state of journalism is absolutely pitiful in America, and we cannot allow tea bagging opportunists to use this as an opportunity to defund the profession any further.

[note: We’ve talked about the Inglis/Gowdy race before.]