More creative planning and zoning techniques

TO: The Honorable Cheryl Farmer, Mayor City of Ypsilanti

Mayor Farmer,

I believe that it may be helpful for you to hear the perspective of another community planner.

Like City Planner Nathan Voght, I am a graduate of EMU's urban planning program, which is one of only a dozen nationally-accredited programs in the U.S. Like Nathan, I have received my certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), which requires extensive education and professional experience, successful completion of a rigorous examination, and continuing compliance with the AICP Code of Ethics.

Unlike Nathan, I'm a resident and a homeowner in the affected neighborhood.

However, I would primarily like to give you my thoughts about the "Cross St. Area" rezoning plan process from another community planning perspective:

NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
From the comments I've read in the newspaper and heard at various public meetings, it doesn't appear that anyone is attempting to "demonize" Nathan.

However, as a community planner, I am concerned any time a growing number of individuals complain that a city planner is slanting information or selectively providing data to support a particular, predetermined point of view. I would be equally or more concerned if I was an elected official hearing such comments, since availability of complete and un-biased information is essential to decision making.

Among the most important elements of the AICP Code of Ethics are those that require certified community planners to be honest and above reproach, and to always consider the public interest first, even above the interest of your client (whether that client is a local government, private developer, or otherwise). Slanting or selective use of information to bolster a particular point of view at the expense of the public interest is inappropriate behavior for an AICP-certified community planner.

An example.... During one of the Planning Commission meetings on the "Cross St. Area" rezoning and related text amendments, several mortgage, insurance, and real estate marketing and investment experts spoke in opposition to the proposed rezonings, noting the deficiencies in the proposal and pointing out specific adverse consequences for neighborhood residents, property owners, and the City.

Upon further questioning by the Planning Commission, Nathan proceeded to dismiss these concerns as irrelevant, substituting his opinion for those of these experts. When I suggested a potential zoning solution to the question of how to regulate the increased number of nonconformities without adversely impacting availability of residential mortgages (a method used by many communities), my suggestion was dismissed out of hand.

Mr. Voght has sought support from the Normal Park Neighborhood Association (several visits, according to the association's newletters), which is not included in the rezoning plan to any significant degree. On the other hand, Nathan has made only a token effort at best to work with the Midtown Neighborhood Association, which is a core part of the rezoning plan. Whether intended or not, this pattern is likely to result in biased results.

LACK OF IMPROVEMENT
As a certified community planner, we must always strive to provide accurate information and objective recommendations based upon a thorough examination of the issues. We must always seek to maximize public participation, and to build consensus where possible. I have worked on a number of projects where the initial draft of a plan or ordinance was substantially changed and improved through meaningful public participation (after all, it is those with a real stake in the neighborhood, community or issue in question that are most likely to be aware of the problems and to have identified possible solutions).

This rezoning plan has not been altered in any significant way since it was first proposed, despite consistent and substantial public comments and many constructive recommendations for improvement.

This lack of improvement may reflect the lack of meaningful public participation (public hearings and audience participation at Council meetings are a poor substitute for actually engaging in a real discussion with the neighborhood), and the lack of objectivity on the part of the primary staff coordinator for the project.

A BETTER WAY
Finally, as a community planner, I am aware of numerous potential strategies for "achieving Council goals of improving quality of life and increasing home-ownership." Traditional zoning is among the least effective of these strategies. Working with organized neighborhood stakeholders at the "grass roots" level to develop a comprehensive neighborhood plan is likely to be much more effective, especially in the near term. Traditional neighborhood development (TND) regulations, form-based zoning, and existing use zoning are among the possible regulatory techniques that could be applied to the Midtown neighborhood and surrounding areas.

There are more creative and more effective planning and zoning "tools" available to the City to help the Midtown neighborhood and surrounding areas continue to improve. From my experience in attending meetings on the rezoning plan, I have found no evidence showing that any other alternatives besides "downzoning" were ever even considered by the City planning staff.

If you would like to explore these other "tools", I would recommend that the current rezoning scheme be rejected by City Council in favor of City Council direction to the planning staff and Planning Commission to work with the Midtown Neighborhood Association and other neighborhood stakeholders to develop a real plan for the future of these neighborhoods. Harvey Krage from Midtown has already stated repeatedly that his organization is ready to lead the development and implementation of such a plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rodney C. Nanney, AICP
40 S. Summit St.
nammeroo@yahoo.com
(734) 483-2271


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cheryl farmer [mailto:mayorsis@provide.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Dec 2 meeting
>
> Steve and Kathleen,
> Please stop demonizing Nathan. Nathan has been working on re-zoning
> issues for over a year as one strategy for achieving Council goals of
> improving quality of life and increasing home-ownership. This is a
> valid strategy, used all over the country. Nathan didn't invent it.
>

Concerns over Downzoning and Ypsi City Planning Departments email announcement two days before the Special Meeting

Dear Mayor and City Council Member,

I am discouraged to learn that just two days before the special city council meeting to get public input on the Cross Street and Midtown downzoning plan, the planning department sent out an invitation to all the neighborhood associations announcing the special meeting of Dec 2nd. (see below for the actual announcement)

How long has the city staff known about the Dec 2 meeting? Well over a three weeks. Yet two days before the meeting, the planning department finally sends out an email to the neighborhood associations and CoPAC announcing the meeting. Why did city staff wait so long to get the word out?

I can tell you why. Because they can say to council that they sent out notice and tried to reach out to the community, but by giving such short notice, it will keep to a minimum the number of people that will actually come because schedules have already been set and so most folks will not be able to make the meeting.

The staff didn't have to print anything, it was a simple email. And yet it took over three weeks before they sent it out. Mind you they didn't send it out to all the association members, they sent it to the neighborhood leaders who then must forward out to the members. With people on vacation or work, it maybe a day or so before the mail is read or forwarded to all the members. So for many the email announcing the special meeting will arrive AFTER the meeting. Perfect!

This happens time and time again with city staff and I don’t understand why no one is held accountable. I am not willing to accept that they are "trying to do their best" because if this is their best, their best is not good enough. These are planning professionals that make between $40,000 and $60,000 a year. They know better and can do better.

Secondly, did you read the email notice. Note the phrase "Planning Commission has recommended zoning map and text changes to City Council." Why is that in there? Well it is to try and lull the reader into a sense of security, saying ah heck, this has been already approved by planning commission, no big deal, no need to go to the special meeting.

There is no mention about all the neighbors that have spoke out against this downzoning proposal. At the public hearing last February 2004, 95% of speakers, people that live or work in the affected district, spoke for over an hour against downzoning and asked the planning commission to vote it down. Only one property owner in a district of 600 hundred properties spoke in favor of downzoning. How come that wasn't in the email announcement and why wasn't city council told about this at the downzoning presentation in October?

When the planning department came before the planning commission they told the planning commissioners that this downzoning plan was a council goal and it was important for the community and that there were numerous public meetings prior to this downzoning plan being presented. The planning department never told the planning commissioners that the vast majority of the public that spoke at these public meetings and hearings spoke against the proposed plan and that the public made numerous suggestions for improvements, yet none of recommendations made by neighbors were implemented or incorporated into the final plan. Whenever someone spoke up, they were dismissed by city staff as a minority and so their ideas were ignored. Yet the people that spoke against downzoning were people that live and work in the Cross Street and Midtown Neighborhood area and their opinions and suggestions for improvement were being ignored at every step.

So the planning commissioners start to think, well these planning guys are the paid professionals, so even though all but one audience member spoke out agaisnt this plan, it gets approved. This plan is what the council wants, and that is what the planning department told the commission, so the planning commission sends the plan to council. Not a big deal, city council has final say and they can listen to the neighbors concerns and decide what is best. If the planning commission doesn't approve this, it never gets to council. The planning commission was told by the city planning department that this what the council wanted and what the council had outlined in their goal setting sessions. So if this is what the council wanted, the planning commission feels obligated to approve the plan. So off it goes to council because that is what the planning department told the planning commission they should do.

Next is the meeting at city council. Instead of saying "here is the plan you wanted", the planning department switches gears. They tell the council that the planning commission, after careful review and numerous public meetings, approved this plan and this is what the planning commission and the public want.

Wait, did you see the switch?

The planning department changed the story. They even did it in the email announcement for this meeting as well. Now they tell the council that this plan has already been approved by the planning commission. Why?

One reason is to provide cover to council and to deflect and dismiss all the people in the audience speaking out against this plan. It is as if the planning department is telling council just ignore the folks in the audience, the planning commission carefully reviewed this plan and they approved it and there were lots of hearings and that these folks in the audience are just a small minority of whiners and so you should approve this plan that the community wants.

Yet the folks in the audience were the same people that spoke out against this plan at the public hearings. Spoke out against it at the planning commission, and now are speaking out before council. And it isn't a small minority, it is the majority of property owners in the district. Hundreds of which have already signed a petition protesting this change.

But the planning department is trying minimize and marginalize their input as insignificant and they add a new twist, they start to hint around that these complaints are too late. The planning department tells council that the process is already too far along to make changes and besides it was already approved by the planning commission.

But the neighbors in this area of 600 properties overwhelmingly don't want this downzoning plan. Moreover, it isn't a small minority, it is the majority of owners. How is this representative government?

Meanwhile, every neighbor is begging the city staff and council to do something about the parking problems and blight and unsafe housing in the area. The city says that downzoning will fix that but when you talk to professionals around the country they tell you that downzoning by itself won't fix blight and it won't reduce density. You need to do more and the more is what is missing from this plan. There is no funding for more effective enforcement and there is no plan to deal with the trash, blight or crime. It is hoped that by downzoning it will be magic bullet, that will reduce the need for city services and these other problems will fix themselves. In the mean time, property owners can no longer rebuild their property if a there should be a fire or a tree falls on the house because downzoning has made the house non-conforming. There are already 300 non-conforming properties and this plan will create 57 new non-conformities and the plan adds new legislation that will make it more difficult for non-conforming uses to rebuild. That is not fair to the people that have invested so much into this neighborhood.

So when the downzoning plans comes before council, council is shocked when all the neighbors show up representing hundreds of properties in the area and are all up in arms about this downzoning plan. I have heard from at least two councilors and the mayor who have all said, why are you bringing these concerns up so late. They aren't. The neighbors have been bringing these concerns up at every meeting, at every hearing and at every chance we could. But council wasn’t told about those neighborhood concerns and so when they hear from the citizens for the first time, city staff marginalizes those concerns by telling council, there have been lots of meetings, and that this plan was approved by the planning commission and that the city needs to press on. However, it was approved over the strong objections of the vast majority of the property owners and neighbors affected by this plan.

The city planning department never told council about all the people that spoke against this plan at planning commission or at the public hearings. The planning department is being selective in what they tell council and the community. This is not professional and it is not good government stewardship.

It is, however, a clear sign that the process of gathering input from the public is broken. We need a better process that is inclusive, less adversarial, and reaches out to the community, rather then dividing the community.

WE NEED A BETTER PROCESS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING!

The current method does nothing to foster communications between the city and the citizens and it marginalizes citizen input at every step.

If the planning department is going to quote council goals as a reason to approve the downzoning, they then should subscribe to all the council goals, especially the one that says that they should be more open in communicating with the public and involving the public in all processes. Here is the Council goal from the 2004-2005 Goal Setting Session

*** Council Goal Number Two ***
Continue to foster an environment in City government where communication and information is shared and services are provided in an efficient, cost-effective, friendly and timely manner. Emphasize in Council and staff communications with residents and others a “culture” of openness, a commitment by the City to information sharing and educating residents about the problems and challenges faced and the strategies to be employed to address them, and a “culture” of “community services” in relationships between the City and residents, neighborhood organizations, and others
*** http://www.cityofypsilanti.com/boards/bd_city-council/2004-05councilgoals.pdf ***

The city staff is not meeting Council Goal Number Two by sending out an email notice two days before a very important special city council meeting on a topic affecting hundreds and hundreds of properties in our community. They are also not meeting this goal by being dismissive of suggestions for improvements from the people that will be directly impacted by this plan.

What are the costs for all the city staff labor, notice in the paper or postings of the meeting, meeting space, time spent for preparations, hand outs, cost of equipment to produce materials, plus the labor costs for the actual meeting for all the staff members that will be at the December 2nd meeting. What does it cost to put on a special meeting like the Dec 2nd meeting? It must cost several thousands of dollars in labor and materials. It is probably even higher.

What are we getting for our investment of several thousands of dollars to hold just one special meeting and did we do the best we could to 'foster an environment...where communication and information is shared." Could we have done more to get notice out with plenty of time to plan to attend.

If meetings are so expensive, did the city do enough to make sure that they reached out to as many people as possible and with enough time to maximize citizen participation?

The answer in this case is No!

I just can't see that an announcement two days before the special meeting is getting the word out in time and it is not meeting the council goal of improving communications with citizens.

We aren't spending our money wisely and we are not working to include the neighborhoods in our discussions and planning process. We can and should do better and it is the responsibility of our elected officials to hold our city staff accountable for how we conduct the business of government and the costs of these expensive and time consuming special meetings, especially when they are poorly advertised in what appears to be an attempt to discourage people from participating.

We can do better, in these tight financial times, we must do better.

- Steve

Steve Pierce,
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Direct: (734) 482-9682

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:20:34 -0500
From: Nathan Voght
Subject: Cross Street Area Rezoning Mtg Thurs. Dec. 2

Dear Neighborhood Association Representatives,

All neighborhood association members are invited to attend a City Council meeting this Thurs. evening from 7pm to 9pm, Dec. 2 regarding the Cross Street Area Rezoning. Planning Commission has recommended zoning map and text changes to City Council. The purpose of the proposed changes is to provide long term improvement and stability to the study area and increase home-ownership opportunities. The affected area is generally bordered by Huron Street on the east, Forest and EMU campus on the north, Summit Street on the west, and Downtown and West Michigan Ave. on the south. Details regarding the proposed changes will be available at the meeting.

Information is also available at www.cityofypsilanti.com. The meeting will be held in room 201 of Welch Hall on EMU Campus. Parking vouchers will be provided to attendees to park free in the McKenney Union parking lot.

Please forward this information to all neighborhood association members.

Please contact me for any additional information. Thank you.

Nathan Voght
Planner II

City of Ypsilanti
Planning and Development Department
1 S. Huron
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
P: 734-483-9646
F: 734-483-7260
nvoght@cityofypsilanti.com