When is “dire” really dire? And is using the word in a political campaign the equivalent of spraying gasoline on an already blazing fire?
As reported in today’s Farmington Observer, an exchange between Council member Joanne McShane and Mayor Valerie Knol demonstrates the spectrum of opinions, even among those who support the Downtown Farmington streetscape. Knol used the word “dire” in the context of reporting a number of volunteers have told her they will “walk away” if the August 5 bond authorization fails. McShane argued against use of the word, characterizing it as “negative spin.”
So let’s start by defining the word “dire.” According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the primary definition goes like this: “Warning of or having dreadful or terrible consequences.” It would certainly be dreadful and terrible if volunteers became so discouraged and so disappointed at the perceived resistance to progress, that they washed their hands of Farmington. In that sense, Mayor Knol is correct.
But a dictionary meaning really doesn’t do justice to the word. Its use evokes a sense of desperation, a clear and present danger, the promise of utter catastrophe. Based on what I understand this vote to be, “dire” does not accurately describe what will happen if the vote fails. Because a “no” vote only prevents the city from issuing $3.2 million in bonds, at this point in time.
What will stop the streetscape - and create the dire consequence – has more to do with how streetscape supporters react, in the unlikely event this vote fails.
Someone once said in a letter to the editor that Hank Borgman and his loyal minions have brought Farmington to its knees. Nothing could be further from truth; in fact, this petition drive brought Farmington to its feet. Volunteers have mounted a “vote yes” campaign, spent hours meeting with community groups and talking to residents and even creating a video project to provide the community with information. The petition drive resulted in an all-out, no-holds-barred effort that has changed minds and hearts.
But if volunteers simply walk away because the election fails, they will create their own dire consequences. I would understand tired. I would understand discouraged. I would even understand angry. I would not understand giving up.
The only thing we learn by giving up is what it takes to defeat us. And Farmington, that cannot be a “no” vote on the streetscape FUNDING. Because that’s all this is. It’s not a referendum on Downtown improvements. It’s a referendum on the funding for THIS Downtown improvement. And if it fails, we will begin again, with more information than we had before.
We will phase the project or scale it differently or find another way to fund it. If necessary, we will come back for another vote and another vote after that. There can be no failure unless we forget our common goal, which is revitalizing Downtown Farmington.
Everything else is just details.
–Joni Hubred-Golden
Michigan Woman Blogger
An interesting read indeed……let me see if I got this straight. Our Mayor wants to do more with less but not without first asking for more of our money. Our Mayor urges us to be creative and imagine the possiblities yet endorses an age-old misleading method of taxation to pay for the project. Now from this article I learn that it is HER minions that are holding their breath while stomping their feet, i.e., threatening to walk, and our Mayor’s response? The fear of dire consequences. Nice. And now we learn there is no backup plan. Imagine that. Don’t have to, smells way too fishy. Who wouldn’t run away from that kind of leadership?
Here’s an even more interesting read…..http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807010347
A few points:
1. What’s happening in South Lyon is no different than what’s happening here. Business owners are going to be nervous about the impacts of construction. But a close read of the story shows that both business owners quoted said they’re in favor of the project. They believe in the end result, and they understand temporary pain (which they can mitigate by enhancing their promotional and marketing efforts) is worth the gain. I found the fact that they phased the project interesting.
2. Mayor Valerie Knol took a leadership role in a group of like-minded citizens, some of whom are very emotional about the project and expressed that emotion to her. I see no difference between their reactions and the catastrophic predictions from some on the “no” side, who have argued – among other “dire” consequences – that the streetscape will lead businesses and residents to abandon Farmington in droves.
3. Just because a “back up” plan hasn’t been formally discussed at a council meeting doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If you attend the August meeting and it’s discussed, I think you’ll find the folks involved most directly have a pretty good idea what will happen in the event the streetscape funding vote fails. The problem with getting all of your information from newspapers is that newspaper reporters do not ever have all of the information.
4. Nothing – NOTHING – is more interesting reading than The Enterprise. Please.
1. What’s happening in South Lyon is no different than what’s happening here.
1. I found the fact that they phased the project interesting.
2. I see no difference between their reactions and the catastrophic predictions from some on the “no” side, who have argued – among other “dire” consequences – that the streetscape will lead businesses and residents to abandon Farmington in droves.
3. Just because a “back up” plan hasn’t been formally discussed at a council meeting doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If you attend the August meeting and it’s discussed, I think you’ll find the folks involved most directly have a pretty good idea what will happen in the event the streetscape funding vote fails.
4. Nothing – NOTHING – is more interesting reading than The Enterprise. Please.
I don’t know what happened with that previous post but let’s try again…..
1. What’s happening in South Lyon is no different than what’s happening here.
1. I found the fact that they phased the project interesting.
2. I see no difference between their reactions and the catastrophic predictions from some on the “no” side, who have argued – among other “dire” consequences – that the streetscape will lead businesses and residents to abandon Farmington in droves.
3. Just because a “back up” plan hasn’t been formally discussed at a council meeting doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If you attend the August meeting and it’s discussed, I think you’ll find the folks involved most directly have a pretty good idea what will happen in the event the streetscape funding vote fails.
4. Nothing – NOTHING – is more interesting reading than The Enterprise. Please.
I don’t know what happened with that previous post but let’s try again…..ahhh…it is the brackets.
1. What’s happening in South Lyon is no different than what’s happening here.
Big difference: the city paid for this project out of their own coffers instead of asking their already stretched public for more.
1. I found the fact that they phased the project interesting.
So did I and that’s why I posted the link. We should have phased the approach here too instead of asking for an overpriced tax extension.
2. I see no difference between their reactions and the catastrophic predictions from some on the “no” side, who have argued – among other “dire” consequences – that the streetscape will lead businesses and residents to abandon Farmington in droves.
Big difference #1: children from both sides can’t expect to pout, have temper tantrums, and get their way. But for those that want this project to pass, the burden of proof is on them to provide sound, logical, reasoned, “tenable” information. Irrational, childlike behavior, even disguised as passionate emotional responses, is just going to get you sent to the corner.
Big difference #2: more is expected from our leaders. Lots more. A higher standard, stronger backbone, and unwavering commitment to staying positive and rallying the loyal followers.
3. Just because a “back up” plan hasn’t been formally discussed at a council meeting doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If you attend the August meeting and it’s discussed, I think you’ll find the folks involved most directly have a pretty good idea what will happen in the event the streetscape funding vote fails.
Good leaders ALWAYS have a plan and a backup plan. After four years of volunteer effort, this is the LEAST that should have been provided. Makes me wonder what really goes on at the council meetings. I don’t go to meetings I dread and this sounds like one of them.
4. Nothing – NOTHING – is more interesting reading than The Enterprise. Please.
Absolutely! What the heck was I thinking?!!? In my own way without my own words I thought that article might support those Yes voters thinking about walking away.
Well, that’s a good lesson about brackets! I’ll avoid them as I make these points:
“Big difference: the city paid for this project out of their own coffers instead of asking their already stretched public for more.”
Ummm… well, I have a terrible cold, but even in my stuffy head “city coffers” still reads “stretched public” to me. Go back to the property tax barrel analogy for a moment – the bond proposal allows the City of Farmington to dedicate a portion of its total millage to paying off the bonds. South Lyon will one day have a sewer project or street paving or some other capital improvement to fund, and the city will not have the money it spent on the streetscape to rely on – therefore, city officials will have to raise its millage or float a bond issue.
“We should have phased the approach here too instead of asking for an overpriced tax extension.”
The cost of the project is the cost of the project, whether done in one year or two or three. However, phasing would likely increase costs, given the way the price of gas is going up. I thought it might be worth it to ease the burden on businesses, though.
“But for those that want this project to pass, the burden of proof is on them to provide sound, logical, reasoned, “tenable” information. Irrational, childlike behavior, even disguised as passionate emotional responses, is just going to get you sent to the corner.”
So, basically, you’re saying proponents are the only ones really required to provide good information and to behave impeccably, while opponents can name-call, misrepresent facts, mischaracterize the funding, catastrophize the outcome and generally predict the destruction of the entire city without consequence to the validity of their position? Wow. Well, that explains a lot.
“I don’t go to meetings I dread and this sounds like one of them.”
Why would you dread going to a meeting wherein the information you believe is critical to the project will be presented? Very confusing.
I’m saying if proponents want it passed, proponents should provide complete and correct information.
Our Mayor wrote, “Do more with less and that’s exactly what we intend to do.” Then she supports asking for more money to do it. What is this then, exactly, if it’s not misrepresentation, misinformation, or mischaracterization? Proponents remain surprisingly silent about that. Scott S, don’t make me come down to the market and challenge you about that in person.
I dread going to meetings that are three times as long as they need to be, where we are not sitting on the same side of a level table at least at some point during the time.
I have no idea how other proponents feel, but I’ve taken to ignoring the tax comments, because i cannot fathom any reason to keep arguing with a brick wall. Opponents have steadfastly refused to face reality in this area, and I never argue with those who simply refuse to accept truth. What’s more, every time information is presented, opponents respond not with well-researched and documented counter-information to disprove the point, but by flinging accusations of dishonesty and, in today’s Observer, misuse of public funds.
For instance, I consider the accusation that proponents have failed to publicize the total cost of the project absurd. Clearly, this issue has been presented as $3.2 million with interest over 25 years. Let’s credit voters with the intelligence to understand that’s not going to be a total of $3.2 million – and that it would misrepresent the cost to calculate the total now, because the interest rate hasn’t been set. I cannot understand why this false argument persists.
The contention that the city is asking for “new money” is likewise false. The millage will not go up if this is passed and will not go down if this is passed. The city will use money generated by the current millage to pay off the bonds, albeit for a project some citizens don’t want. This is neither misinformation nor misrepresentation. It is simply the truth. Folks could argue ad infinitum over whether the tax millage should go down when the sewer millage expires. This will not change what happens when the sewer millage expires. I would encourage those who genuinely want their tax bills reduced to attend a council meeting and demand the city do the following:
1. Cease all paving or construction projects, unless the roads are deemed unsafe.
2. Lay off city employees.
3. End the twice annual leaf pick-up.
4. Reduce the hours of operation at city hall to three days per week.
5. Reduce the number city vehicles on the road. This includes all voluntary inspections, public safety patrols, community policing efforts, anything that isn’t critical.
These are just a few meaningful ways to reduce costs in city government, as they would provide a dependable, annualized reduction in expenditures. Before this issue came up, I’ve never seen or heard about any serious effort to convince the city to reduce the millage by reducing services. In fact, people quite often cite the level of city services among their reasons for living here. They also complain about taxes. It’s a dilemma.
The “I don’t have the patience for meetings” argument pains me. You – and I use this word deliberately now, because we are in the context of YOUR involvement with YOUR local government – seem aligned with the majority of Americans who have not yet made the connection between their lack of involvement with and attention to government, and its spinning ever more speedily out of control. It starts right here, at City Hall.
Where is the truth behind “Do more with less and that is exactly what we intend to do.” and then ask for more tax money to do it? Where is the reality behind this?
Proponents have presented the issue in the Street Scape Smart Edition, page 5, as “The terms are 3.2 million, financed over a period not to exceed twenty five years, with an interest rate expected to be about 5%.” You’re right – let’s credit the voters with some intelligence. The estimated total cost assuming no cost overages or rework, is approximately 5.6 million. This is not misrepresentation or a false argument. It is a reasoned, logical conclusion based on proponents own numbers and words. More importantly, this is an estimate which any quality project would have to have in order to obtain the required buy-in. What’s the most this project will cost me is perhaps the most frequent question asked by a business owner considering a new investment. This is not absurd to state this unless it is absurd that an individual can not have a say in how their government should operate. Especially when encouraged by the mayor by her statement, “Governments must operate by the same principle.” referring they should be managed like a business.
Walk the talk Ms. Mayor. Do more with less (with the money you have). And really use creativity and imagination to not just pay for it, but to lay the brick too.
I’d love a chat at the City Tavern sometime about reducing the cost of government, including most of what you have suggested. Where is the City Tavern of Farmington? Or do you and I have to create one?
It’s not a question of patience – I simply do not go to meetings that are not productive. Non-productive meetings are usually staffed by unhappy campers. Sorry; life’s too short. I’m thinking Tim Russert & Tony Snow right now. So it’s fine with me if we move onto something else.
Oh, and I am quite involved with my government; don’t lump me in with most folks. First, I pay more taxes than 95% of most folks. I also write the checks and that’s a BIG difference folks. But I don’t have a problem with that as that usually means big money both ways. But I do have a say in where it goes, who manages it, and who whines about whether or not I’m paying or using my fair share. And, my wife is an attorney for the government so there!
Government from the people; not always from City Hall. At least make the tables the same level. Pharmacists have finally learned that one!
“Walking the talk” is really all about the talk, isn’t it? And a public servant has to walk ALL her talk to have any hope of credibility, so follow along:
Mayor Knol believes in doing more with less. Under her leadership, the city has pursued a number of cost-cutting measures, as enumerated in the city manager’s annual report. Even though costs for providing services (largely salaries and benefits) have increased annually while state revenue sharing and federal funds have dwindled, the millage rate has stayed the same for some time. So on that level, she certainly does walk the talk. (Of course, the credit/blame for the city’s current financial position is shared, but we’re of a singular focus in this discussion.)
Mayor Knol has said she believes the streetscape investment will generate a return to the city and property owners in the form of more private investment, more demand for those houses currently up for sale and higher overall property values. Her talk has been all about how this investment will not raise the current millage rate, but will use public funds that will otherwise sit in the city’s coffers with or without this bond issue’s passage. She considers this project a prudent use of those funds.
Being a champion of the streetscape project, therefore, is walking the talk. She is standing behind exactly what she has said all along. That is the very definition of walking the talk.
The problem, as I see it, lies with those who believe their interpretation of the streetscape’s value should define everyone else’s. And it seems quite unfair to insist that Mayor Knol walk someone else’s talk, doesn’t it?
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again – the city has put forward a number of multi-million dollar public improvement projects without so much as a peep from residents. It’s not the money, it’s not lower taxes or wasteful spending. It’s the passionate opposition to this particular project. Also, we all measure “more with less” differently. It’s easy to rally anti-tax support around a downtown improvement project bond, less so around the services homeowners hold dear, because those services have a measurable and well-established effect on property values.
Just one more comment on your last statement – who do you think holds down the fort at City Hall? Government is the people, even those who have been elected to office. I just think it would be good if some more folks showed up to play the game, instead of sitting in the nosebleed seats and tossing popcorn onto the field…
I am reading your post from the bottom up. I agree, more folks should show up to play the game. I am here, and I am changing the rules of this game. I give away lots of food and I stopped handing out knuckle sandwiches years ago. People need to be where they feel they belong.
Right. This resident has been peeped. We are just getting started.
I don’t believe my interpretation of the streetscape’s value should define everyone else’s. For me to do so would be elitist, to say the least. The fact is I’ve been spending quite a bit of energy trying to hear what the individual proponents believe and why. Except for you and maybe Scott now, it’s like I’m asking for a million dollars. I’m simply stating what I believe and why. And on this particiular issue, Mayor Knol was specific: Do more with less and that’s exactly what we intend to do. And then she asks for more money. I’m sorry, that’s not doing more with less. Also, she encourages us to imagine the possibilities after 45 years of doing nothing and then falls back on a bond issue? How creative is that? Not.
We disagree on the definition of walking the talk. That’s ok, we disagreed on the definition of facts too. Sooner or later, there will be more common ground but unlike the mayor, I will not say one thing and do another. That would put a wrinkle on my heart in addition to a few on my forehead.
From what I’ve seen of our mayor, I believe she believes what she is saying. For now, I’m here to help her make sure.
One doesn’t talk about snakes nor forms committees about snakes. They go out and kill the darn snakes.
This has been a more interesting Streetscape exchange. Agree?
Where is that City Tavern?
Ah, we are back to the same old “new taxes” discussion then – another point-of-view issue, no longer worth arguing. But here again, Mayor Knol walks her talk, because as I understand her point of view, no new tax is involved. Rather than raising the millage rate to pay off the bond, the city will work within its existing millage. That others disagree does not make her position any less (or more) valid.
As for the City Tavern, I would be in favor of such a place, but sans alcohol. Friends don’t let friends argue drunk.
Oh, and interesting – agree. There, that’s one…