Mark Maynard | 2016 | August

Which “Stranger Things” character are you?

By Mark | August 13, 2016

Looking around the internet today, I noticed that some site had a “Which ‘Stranger Things’ character are you?” quiz. I didn’t take it, as it looked like it sucked, and since I don’t need anyone to tell me that I’d be Sheriff Hopper. But it got me thinking that, if I had even remotely good coding skills, I could probably come up with something a hell of a lot more accurate at predicting who you might be if you were thrust into the Stranger Things universe. Here are some of my initial thoughts. I’m sure I could do even better with time, but I thought I should hurry and post something now, while it’s fresh in my mind. Oh, and the following has some spoilers in it, so don’t go too deep if you haven’t seen the show yet.

[If you liked this, check out I don’t give a fuck which Seinfeld character Buzzfeed says you are… You won’t believe my new super awesome meme…]

Posted in Art and Culture, Pop Culture, Special Projects, Uncategorized | Tagged Mark's big ideas, memes, Stranger Things, which character are you | 12 Comments

Brendan Toller’s documentary “Danny Says” to be released September 30

By Mark | August 11, 2016

A year or so ago, as you may recall, I interviewed filmmaker Brendan Toller about Danny Says, a documentary that he’d been working on concerning the life, adventures and cultural impact of Danny Fields, the man who, among other things, got the Stooges signed to Elektra in 1968, and later went on to become the co-manager of the Ramones in 1975. Well, this past January, the film, which has been attracting good press in the wake of its South By Southwest debut, was picked up by Magnolia Pictures, and it looks like it’ll be hitting theaters, iTunes and Amazon Video on September 30. Here’s the trailer for the film, which Magnolia released earlier today.

And, here, in hopes that it might encourage you to see the film if it should happen to come through your town, is a brief excerpt from my interview with Toller, which you should really just read in its entirety. [The following clip came just after a discussion involving an encounter between Fields and Beatles’ manager Brian Epstein.]

MARK: Speaking of the Beatles, Danny claims to have been at least partially responsible for their breakup, given that it was his decision, as editor of the teen magazine Datebook, to play up John Lennon’s “(We’re) more popular than Jesus” quote in 1966, bringing it to the attention of folks in the Bible belt. Danny feels as though this act of his led to the protests and death threats against the Beatles, which ultimately led to their decision to stop touring, and their decision to break-up. Is that, in your opinion, the story of a life-long PR man looking to insert himself into rock and roll history, or do you think he really feels as though he brought about the downfall of the Beatles?

BRENDAN: To say Danny broke up the Beatles is, as Danny says, “to sell a candybar in twenty words or less.” He got the ball rolling, he got the conversation started. By ‘66, people in the public eye were starting to get in trouble for saying the right things. The 60s, as we now know them, were starting to emerge through the expression of artists like Bob Dylan and Lenny Bruce – provocateurs in a sense. Danny was publishing front-page headlines like, “It’s a country where anyone black is a dirty nigger” [Paul McCartney on the United States], or “Message songs are a drag” [Bob Dylan], to stoke the fire. Unfortunately, it was too much too soon, and, as with most situations in his life, Danny was way ahead of his time. Politically-revealing headlines are rarely seen on the newsstands, nevermind on the covers of a magazine geared toward 11-year-old girls in the 1960s. Danny’s spent his life defining a platform for the fringe. In ‘66, the Beatles were the biggest band in the world, but what about the Who? The Kinks? The Byrds? The Velvet Underground? Danny has always shined a light on the outre and obscure.

MARK: Regardless of his culpability in the breakup of the Beatles, it makes for a great story that the man who gave us the Ramones and Stooges also killed the Beatles… And, who knows, maybe we wouldn’t have had the Ramones or the Stooges had the Beatles kept making records. Maybe one thing had to happen to make room for the other.

BRENDAN: Danny always encouraged those that he admired and gave artists authority to tip the mainstream in an immensely influential way. The Beatles influenced a wave of kids to pick up guitars, but now it seems the Stooges, Ramones and Velvets are the template for contemporary music – a second wave.

MARK: Danny, by all accounts, was a brilliant young man. Assuming the historical record is correct, he was already at Harvard Law at 20, when he decided to drop out and return to New York. (Some sources give the year of birth his as ‘39, while others give it as ‘41.) Assuming you asked him, I’m curious as to why he dropped out and moved back to New York when he did. What was happening at that time, around 1960, that pulled him back? As he’s often credited with being one of the first publicly gay men in the music business, my guess is that it had something to do with the acceptability homosexuality within the New York arts scene, but I suspect there may have been other factors.

BRENDAN: Boys. Greenwich Village. Fabulous people versus monotonous work that would ultimately lead to a lucrative, but rather dull existence in all likelihood. As for Danny being out, he was never in. Sexuality never defined him as it defines so many today… The sooner we can get away from phrases like, “Oh, meet my friend Charlie, he’s gay,” the better. Independent thought, defiance, humor and (even on the shallow end) physical features are more interesting than sexual preference. There was a secret camaraderie amongst people who gravitated towards members of the same sex in New York for sure, but let’s also not forget it was illegal. People were arrested.

MARK: Is it upon returning to New York that he changed his name from Daniel Feinberg to Danny Fields? Did he talk with you at all about why he decided to make that change?

BRENDAN: Danny started work for a theater PR man and decided he was beginning a life in show biz. Gracie Fields. W.C. Fields. It was that, and to signify a break from the values of his parents, their morals and expectations. He was leaving the ivy life.

MARK: I’m not trying to make a comparison between the two, as Danny was clearly operating a much different level, but I recently watched the documentary Mayor of Sunset Strip about LA radio personality Rodney Bingenheimer, who seems to have had a knack for being at the right place at the right time and facilitating connections between people in the indusry, and I was wondering if there might be some commonality between the two men. Bingenheimer, as I suspect you know, was obsessed by celebrity, and was drawn to the music industry because, although he wasn’t a musician, he was compelled to be a part of it… And I’m just curious if there’s any of that motivating Danny. And, by saying that, I’m not suggesting that he was just a glorified groupie. He clearly wasn’t. But my sense has always been that that he was more a fan than just an industry guy who saw an opportunity to make money off of these people. Would I be wrong about that?

BRENDAN: “Mayor of the Sunset Strip” is a great doc! I think Danny was motivated to be in approximation of fabulous people that surprised and stunned with their talent or beauty. He has a knack for seeing someone’s potential. His medium is people really. There are many in his orbit who never blossom, but those who have, with his prodding and confidence, have made miracles. Iggy is a miracle a hundred times over.

MARK: What would have happened with Iggy, do you think, if not for Danny?

BRENDAN: I think he may have been the “forgotten boy.” I mean, literally Search and Destroy, one of the great rock ‘n’ roll songs of all time, would not exist if Danny had not insisted that Iggy meet Bowie.

MARK: I wasn’t aware that it was Danny that made that introduction.

BRENDAN: Paraphrasing the film… Iggy was watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington at Danny’s apartment. Iggy was in town specifically to make career moves as the Stooges had been denied a recording option by Elektra records. The Stooges were sort of imploding. Danny was out, probably at Max’s, and called Ig three times. “David Bowie is here, he wants to meet you, you could do yourself some good.” The rest, as they say, is history…

As Magnolia has a pretty good track record, bringing films like The Wolfpack and Blackfish to broad audiences over the past few years, I’m hopeful that they can do the same thing for Danny Says. I know that Toller has invested years of his life in this, and I’d love for people to see it… Speaking of Magnolia, it’s probably also worth nothing that they’ve signed a deal to distribute Gimme Danger, the Jim Jarmusch documentary about Iggy and the Stooges, which also promises to be incredible.

Here’s the poster that Magnolia put out a little while ago, which is especially awesome if you know that Fields got his start in the industry as editor of the teen magazine Datebook.

Posted in Art and Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged Blackfish, Brendan Toller, Brian Epstein, Danny Fields, Danny Says, Datebook, David Bowie, documentary, gay history, Gimme Danger, homosexuality, Iggy and the Stooges, Iggy Pop, independent film, Jesus, Jim Jarmusch, John Lennon, Magnolia Pictures, Mayor of Sunset Strip, more popular than Jesus, public relations, punk rock, Ramones, Rodney Bingenheimer, The Beatles, The Stooges, The Wolfpack | 3 Comments

Ypsi City Council considers giving Water Street debt reduction millage second shot in November

By Mark | August 10, 2016

As readers of this site know, the Water Street debt reduction millage failed at this polls earlier this month by a mere 30-some votes in large part because of ballots cast in Ypsilanti’s first ward, where folks on the anti-tax side of the debate concentrated their “vote no” efforts. [First ward voters cast their ballots against the initiative 160 to 29.] Well, as the election was so close, and since we’re now facing even deeper cuts into City services, our Mayor, Amanda Edmonds, has let it be know that she and members of Ypsi City Council are exploring the possibility of putting the issue before voters one more time. Here’s what Edmonds posted to social media a few days ago.

So almost half of you — 39 shy of half, in fact, voted YES on our millage last week. We lost, just barely. It means $700,000 more in cuts after years of cutting to the bone. Have heard from a lot of people wanting to put it back on the ballot in November. If you’d like us to consider that, please drop a line. The only way that could work is if we had people step up as leaders and participants on the campaign committee — talking to people, raising money, knocking on doors, etc. There are lots of things to consider whether this is a good idea or not. We have a deadline very soon to decide, so if you have thoughts on this — yay or nay — or would be interested in helping if it went forward can you please message me and share? As we consider we need to know that people are ready to step up. And if you think it’s not a good idea, message me and let me know why — as well as where you suggest $700K in general fund cuts come from/and or how to make that up in new revenue.

Personally, I’m skeptical. While I suppose it’s technically possible that voters could come out in November and pass the millage, my sense is that it’ll be an uphill battle, given the fact that two other millages will be on the ballot, and that most folks coming out to cast their votes in the general election probably won’t be as educated on the issue. No, I think that, if we’d really been serious about wanting to pass the millage, we would have just expended more time, effort and money prior to the primary, when we had a better shot at it. With that said, though, I think it’s worth exploring the possibility of giving it another shot, seeing as how, without it, we’ll very likely descend into receivership. And, if we don’t take our shot now, we won’t have another opportunity at passing a millage until 2018, unless, of course, we wanted to hold a special election, which would cost us more.

So, given all of that, I guess I’m on board for giving it another shot, assuming I can be assured of a few things. First, I’d like for there to be one point person running the campaign. I think part of the reason the millage lost last time is that no one really took ownership of it, and I’d like for one person to come forward to take on the responsibility. And, I’d like of that person to have a strong, dedicated, diverse committee behind them. Second, I’d want to be convinced that our elected officials are truly onboard, especially our representatives from the first ward, where the last race was lost. I know everyone on City Council said that they were in favor of the millage, but how many of them actually knocked on doors and got out the vote? If we’re going to do this again, and if I’m being asked to contribute toward the printing of yard signs, and everything else that a real campaign requires, I want to be assured that my elected representatives are invested. And, third, I’d want some assurance that a real plan exists – a plan to raise money, mobilize people, and do the mailings that are necessary. During the primary, when this was last on the ballot, I don’t think I saw a single “pro millage” yard sign, no one knocked on my door, and I didn’t receive a single piece of literature at my house. And I’d especially want to know that plans existed to get the word out in both ward one and the more student heavy areas of town, where most of our new voters will likely be coming from from. [In the primary, if I’m not mistaken, only about 20% of registered voters cast their ballots. That number will likely double this time, given the presidential election, and I’d want to be sure that a comprehensive plan exists to reach those people and educate them on the subject.]

If we’re going to do this, let’s do it right. Let’s have a web presence. Let’s have clear and consistent messaging. Let’s have a public list of people who have signed on to “save our city” and support the millage. And let’s make better use of social media.

Even if we were able to do all of that, though, there’s still a very real possibility that it wouldn’t pass. We live in uncertain times, and people, for good reason, are hesitant to pass new taxes, especially in communities like ours, where public services have been in decline for decades, and, quite frankly, people don’t see a lot of value for their tax dollars. An additional tax, even if it comes to less than $100 per household annually, could be an enormous burden on some in our community, and we have to recognize that. The sad truth is, however, if we don’t pass this millage, and an emergency manager is dispatched to Ypsilanti from the Governor’s office, whatever they do is probably going to disproportionately effect these very same people who are struggling the most. [Just look at what the emergency managers have done to Detroit Public Schools and cities like Flint.] And, of course, it probably doesn’t help that, just yesterday, the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission voted to kill the development of the new rec center on Water Street. [Yes, the one positive thing we had to look forward to on Water Street is now gone.]

But, given the fact that deep, severe cuts are looming thanks to our outstanding Water Street debt, and my strong feeling that an emergency manager should be avoided at all costs, I guess the “pro millage” folks can count me in. I’m ready for the fight if they are… How about you?

For those of you not familiar with the Water Street debt reduction millage proposal, and its intended purpose, the following clip comes by way of an article written by Tom Perkins for MLive this past April:

The city of Ypsilanti took the next step toward asking voters to pay off around $10.6 million in Water Street debt.

That represents about half of the $20 million Ypsilanti owed at the beginning of the year.

Officials are proposing a 2.3-mill tax that, if approved, would mean a homeowner with a property assessed at $50,000 would pay $115 annually, or $9.53 a month, for the next 14 years.

At its Tuesday meeting, council unanimously approved the language calling for the millage, which will appear on the Aug. 2 primary ballot.

Council Member Pete Murdock noted that a 2.3-mill road tax is coming off the books in 2017 so residents wouldn’t see a net tax increase if they approve the proposed Water Street millage…

In February, the city took advantage of low interest rates to save around $3.7 million by refinancing the debt. That, combined with a $2.2 million payment from its savings, knocked out about a third of the approximately $20 million in principal and interest Ypsilanti owed.

The city also plans to continue making payments out of its general fund over the next 15 years to cover $2.8 million of the remaining debt. City Manager Ralph Lange said he is planning to find another $700,000 to pay toward the debt by the end of this budget year, and that will save the city an additional $300,000 in interest. Additionally, Michigan Economic Development Corporation converted a $3 million loan into a grant…

By a wide margin, voters rejected a proposed Water Street debt retirement millage and city income tax increase in 2012, but city council members say this proposal is different.

The previous measure included an accompanying income tax and a 4.94 mill Water Street tax. The new proposal doesn’t include an income tax and the millage rate is less than half what city leaders asked voters to approve in 2012…

One last thing that bears repeating… The local landlords who have been bankrolling the “no new taxes” campaigns these past several years, and all of the small government, anti-tax folks who stand behind them, have been asked repeatedly what they’d cut in order to keep us out of receivership. And, instead of answering, they’ve just reiterated their talking points about how our City’s leaders are secretive, inept and wasteful. Regardless of whether or not they’re right about that, though, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re facing $14 million in debt, and we need to find a way to pay it. Again, I can understand why people wouldn’t want to increase their tax bills, but math is math, and we don’t have the money in our current budget to pay the debt that we owe, and no one, to my knowledge, has come forward to point out where we might be able to find an additional $700,000 a year. Given that, I don’t see as how we have any choice but to buy our way out of the Water Street debt and move forward together as a community.

Oh, and speaking of what this is likely to cost us, it was just announced that, among other things, we won’t be filling the three open positions we currently have for police officers, as all local spending has been frozen for the foreseeable future.

[Still want to know more about the history of Water Street and the debate over the millage? Click here.]

Posted in Uncategorized, Ypsilanti | Tagged 1st ward, Amanda Edmonds, Emergency Manager, Lois Richardson, millage, receivership, Water Street debt reduction millage, Ypsilanti City Council | 68 Comments

Trump appears to call for the assassination of his rival, stating that “Second Amendment people” could keep Clinton from appointing judges and destroying the country

By Mark | August 9, 2016

The above comment was made by the Republican candidate for president earlier this afternoon in Wilmington, North Carolina. If you don’t believe me, you’ll find the unedited video below, in which Trump clearly suggests that second amendment enthusiasts might be able to stop Clinton from appointing judges and further “destroying” our country.

Let that sink in for a moment.

A major party candidate vying for the highest office in our country, after telling his audience how, unless stopped, his Democratic rival would “destroy” what’s left of our once great country, then suggested that a motivated, well armed American patriot might be able to put things right.

I’m sure he’ll come out shortly with a statement about how we must have misunderstood him, and how he just meant that second amendment advocates, if they voted as a block, could keep her from office, but is there really any doubt as to what he was saying? And, even if he was just trying to be funny in order to whip up an angry, bloodthirsty crowd, is that really the kind of person we want leading our nation? Do we really want a president who, even in jest, could stand in front of the nation and suggest that, if we truly loved democracy, we’d kill those with opposing views? Shouldn’t we, as a nation, demand more? I know that people are angry, and scared about the future of the nation, and the world, but is it really too much to ask that our leaders not draw their strength from that darkness?

As for what Trump said about Clinton before calling for her assassination, here are a few examples… “Unstable Hillary,” he said, is “a dangerous person who doesn’t tell the truth.” And, what’s more, “she has disregarded the lives of Americans,” he said. People had died because of her, he added. And, if allowed to serve s president, “she will allow people into our country that will do damage,” he warned, “totally open(ing)” America’s borders to do so. And, to make matters worse, he went on to say, she has plans to “release violent criminals and criminal offenders from prison.” “If she gets elected,” he then concluded, “she will cause the destruction of this country from within.”

So, those of you who are still Trump supporters, was he also kidding when he said that Clinton would destroy our country from within and make it possible for dangerous criminals to kill our families, or just when he suggested that Clinton should be assassinated?

A few days ago, on Facebook, I asked whether or not Trump might go one step too far before the election and have a Dead Zone moment, in which everyone got to see very clearly what kind of man he really is. And I think that’s what happened on the stage today in North Carolina. The question is, what will we do with this information. Will we shrug it off one more time as an instance of “Trump being Trump”, or will we really think about what he’s said and consider what it means to cast a vote for a man who would say such a thing, even in jest?

It’s funny how much things have changed, even over the last decade. In 2004, as you’ll recall, we collectively deemed Howard Dean unfit for service because he yelled too loudly. And, back in 2000, we were told by people on the right that we couldn’t vote for Al Gore because he had the audacity to claim responsibility for the internet. And, just a few year’s later, we were told that John Kerry couldn’t hold the job of president because he “flip flopped” on his support of the Iraq war… I wonder where all those people are now, and why they aren’t holding their candidate to the same standards. Why is it that, by yelling too loudly into a mic, one proves himself not to have the temperament for the office, but one can refer to women as pigs, call for the roughing up of protesters at rallies, and suggest that we might get a Supreme Court that we like better through assassination?

Oh, and if you support Trump, you should know that I no longer intend to politely hear you out when you start talking about Clinton’s emails, and how, because she used a private server she’s not fit for office. I’m done with making excuses for people who support Trump. I’m done thinking, “Well, she just feels helpless in a rapidly changing world”, or, “He just hasn’t thought it through when he says his vote for Trump is just a vote to ‘shake things up’ and change the system.” No, if you support Trump, you are supporting a truly dangerous man who will put my family’s future at risk, and my opinion of you, from here on out, will reflect that. I don’t care if we’re friends, or relatives. There is no excuse for not seeing this for what it is. I mean, even conservatives in the intelligence community are beginning to come out publicly and say how unfit for service this man is. Here, if you missed it, is the beginning of the letter issued yesterday by 50 Republican national security experts including former CIA director Michael Hayden.

The letter went on to say the following, which I’d very much like those of you who still support Trump to consider. “We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems,” the authors said. “We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”

Back to Trump’s comments in Wilmington today, I liked what veteran newsman Dan Rather had to say… It’s worth reading in full, but here’s a taste.

No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?

Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.

This cannot be treated as just another outrageous moment in the campaign. We will see whether major newscasts explain how grave and unprecedented this is and whether the headlines in tomorrow’s newspapers do it justice. We will soon know whether anyone who has publicly supported Trump explains how they can continue to do…

Now here’s that video clip from Wilmington.

I wasn’t going to announce it here publicly, but my intention is to spend at least some time between now and the election, working in either Ohio or my home state of Kentucky on the behalf of Hillary Clinton. [Current polling shows Clinton taking Michigan’s electoral votes with 92.4% certainty, so I’m thinking that my talents, such as they are, might be of more use elsewhere.] It won’t be easy, driving down a day here and a day there, but I don’t know how I could live with myself if I didn’t at least try to do something to help put Clinton in the White House, and keep Trump out.

Posted in History, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged Al Gore, assassination, conspiracy theories, Dan Rather, DNC, Donald Trump, double standard, EOS, gun control, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, incite violence, intelligence, John Kerry, Julian Assange, Michael Hayden, misogyny, Mulford Act, national security, North Carolina, people the Clintons have had murdered, people who get away with murder, political violence, presidential assassination program, Presidential politics, Ron Brown, Ronald Reagan, Seth Rich, sexism, temperament, threat of assassination, threat of violence, Wikileaks, Wilmington | 65 Comments

After five years of promises, Ypsi’s downtown rec center pronounced dead

By Mark | August 9, 2016

This past May 2nd, Bob Tetens, the director of the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission, came to Ypsilanti at the behest of Washtenaw County Commissioner Ronnie Peterson, and explained to us why it was that, after five years, he and his team still hadn’t broken ground on the downtown recreation center that we’d all been led to believe would be the “new civic anchor” that would help us jumpstart meaningful development on our 38-acre downtown brownfield known as Water Street and turn our city around. Well, despite his assurances at the time at he was looking for a way to salvage the project, it looks as though he’s going to officially pull the plug on the whole thing this evening, at the monthly meeting of the Washtenaw County Parks and Rec Commission. The agenda for said meeting includes a memorandum about the Water Street project with this recommendation from Tetens.

“Given the current status of the estimated cost of this project, and the uncertainty with the significant remediation of the entire Water Street site, I recommend that the Commission authorize staff to officially notify the City of Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Y of our intent to withdraw our interest in the East Side Community Recreation Center project on the Water Street Redevelopment Area.”

According to Ypsilanti City Council member Pete Murdock, “They had made this decision some months ago, but delayed telling us officially until after the election.” [As you’ll recall, we just failed by 35 votes to pass a Water Street debt reduction millage last week.]

I don’t know what good it is at this point to vent, as doing so likely isn’t going to bring the project back to life, but I think it’s appropriate to once again share the following excerpt from my coverage of the May 2 public meeting referenced above.

…The most interesting response, I think, came from State Representative David Rutledge, who, after saying that he hadn’t intended to voice his opinion publicly, said that this was “the most frustrating thing” he had ever gone through. “And that,” he said, “is coming from someone who works in Lansing.” He went on to say, “This center should have been built two years ago, minimum.” He then said that it wasn’t the contaminated land that was stopping this from going forward, but a lack of will on the part of Tetens and his organization. “If there were a will right now, and the administration said ‘get this done,’ it would get done,” said Rutledge. “We can do something for $13 million,” he added, suggesting that Tetens had the wherewithal to invest more than just $10 million. “There are all kinds of ways that this could happen now if there was the will to do it,” he said. He then he went on to remind Tetens that they’ve been collecting the millage for this for some time now. He also suggested that some of the things that had slowed the project to date, like the negotiations with the Y to manage the center, may have just been “red herrings” intend to slow the project…

Tetens and his staff, in the opinion of many, never wanted to build a recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti, and have just been stalling these past several years, waiting for the right moment to pull the plug on the development, which regional politicians had strongly encouraged them to pursue more than half a decade ago.

Tetens, for what it’s worth, defends his recommendation to the Washtenaw County Parks and Rec Commission as follows.

A number of issues surfaced as staff proceeded with due diligence and design development that significantly increased the cost of the project and put the proposal in jeopardy. First, the 3 ½ -year delay in reaching an agreement on the land resulted in an increased estimated construction cost of over $2.5 million. Changes in the design, most notably a second pool and babysitting/teen areas, added an additional $1.2 million.

Second, the cost of necessary infrastructure had also increased significantly. The additional infrastructure costs were compounded by delays in the MSHDA residential project, Water Street Flats/River Walk Commons, which would have shared the cost of extending the necessary roads and utilities. Consultants estimate an increase in projected infrastructure costs from approximately $340,000 to nearly $800,000.

Finally, soil borings for the foundation revealed the existence of buried construction debris. Estimates from the environmental engineer and design team suggest the cost to remediate the site (remove and replace with clean compacted soil) to be between $700,000 and $1.2 million. City staff had previously indicated that the building site had been excavated to a depth of thirty feet and filled with clean sand that was compacted and ready for construction. The soil borings have proven otherwise. Even more disturbing, contamination elsewhere on the site has resulted in the City barricading access to the new Border-to-Border trail segment shortly after the Heritage Bridge was installed. The Commission provided nearly $600,000 in matching funds for the bridge\trail projects, and helped secure an equal amount from the DNR Trust Fund grant program. It is unknown when the new trail will be available for public use.

Staff has also been working for several months to find additional financial support from the private sector and/or corporate entities. WCPARC and City staff explored the possibility of pursuing a public-private partnership to help deliver the facility at an affordable price point. Working with a private development team that specializes in integrated health and wellness facilities, staff explored the concept of developing a wellness center that would include a fitness component among other health related services. The private developer is not based in Michigan, but has successfully built similar facilities in several communities nationwide. Ultimately these discussions stalled due to an inability to get a firm commitment from a large health care provider.

As mentioned earlier, the original budget for the building was $10 million. The current estimate for completion is approaching $16 million. While the Commission remains committed to providing quality recreation opportunities on the east side of the County, it has become increasingly clear that constructing a new recreation center on the Water Street site is not practical, nor is it a prudent use of WCPARC resources.

We could quibble over the details. And we could point fingers. We could point out that much of the delay that Tetens references above was his own doing, as he chose to wait until a new millage could be passed before breaking ground. We could ask why, if they found “buried construction debris” on the site, as they claim, they’ve never shared evidence of it with the City. And, I suppose, we could make the case that we’d been lied to, as we voted to support the millage in good faith, thinking that it would result in a recreation center on Water Street, when it’s not clear that Tetens and his Commission ever really wanted to pursue it. But what would it get us? As Murdock noted above, it looks as though this has been a forgone conclusion for some time now. [It’s not likely at this point, but I suppose there’s still a remote chance that the Commission could be persuaded not to accept Tetens’ recommendation at this evening’s meeting.]

I’d just like to know where we go from here, and what the Parks and Rec Commission intends to do for the people of Ypsilanti now that they’re likely walking away from the promised recreation center. [On May 2nd, as you’ll recall, Tetans said, “If we can’t build something (on Water Street), we’re not going away,” after it was pointed out that his Commission had no black members and just two members from our side of the County.] Furthermore, I’d be curious as to whether or not they ever seriously looked into the suggestion made by Depot Town restaurant owner Linda French during the May 2 meeting that they move forward and build something smaller on the site right now, that we can afford, but build it in such a way that it could easily be added to at a later date, when additional funds become available. [For instance, French suggested, we could build a rec center now, without a pool, and then add one later.] At the time, Tetans said that this might work, and promised to look into it. And I’d like to know how seriously he took that promise.

And I’d love to know if Ronnie Peterson, who just won the Democratic primary to represent us in the State House, is planning to attend this evening’s meeting of the Washtenaw Parks and Rec Commission, given what he had to say to Tetens on May 2.

From my coverage of the public meeting discussed above:

…Then, Ronnie Peterson questioned whether or not the project would happen at all. In another two years, he said, our $10 million may just be worth $8 million. “What will we do then?”, he asked. “You owe the community an explanation,” Peterson demanded. “They supported the millage. A promise was made. And we deserve an answer (as to whether or not a rec center is going to be built).” Peterson then went on to add that Tetens and the County, if they wanted to, could make this happen, as they have both financial reserve and the ability to borrow for things such as this. In response, Tetans said that he did not have sufficient funds to make this happen, and reiterated that he was dedicated to the eastern side of the county…

And, for that matter, I wonder if anyone else will step up at the meeting on behalf of our community. Will Yousef Rabhi, David Rutledge or Conan Smith be on hand to ask Tetens if this Ypsilanti development was ever really a priority for him, and what, if anything, he intends to do for our community now?

update: Washtenaw County Commissioner Conan Smith just posted the following to Facebook. I suspect he’d be OK with my posting it here at well.

Mark, as you know, I’ve been a champion of this project all along and a proponent of the Water Street site. Even I find myself struggling to justify its continuance. I think it was wise for the Parks Commission to close out this iteration of this particular project. It is confronted with too many complexities (from cost to contamination to a lack of clarity about what exactly the investment would be anchoring) for anyone to honestly say it would move forward to completion. What the commission did tonight was officially notify the city that we would not proceed with our project. That allows both governments to start fresh. Parks is committed to investing in recreational opportunities on the east side, and the second half of the motion directed staff to start a community conversation about what the priorities are for east side recreation. You should know that this specifically leaves the door open to work on Water Street and we continue to negotiate with St Joe and others around the possibility of a joint facility there. However we will also look at other options. Staff today toured several YCS buildings that may be considered as alternatives to new construction. We’re also talking with partners about various programming opportunities and more diffuse capital investments (e.g., shoring up existing facilities that are in disrepair could be an option). Essentially, we’re looking for a clean slate, not walking away.