East Lansing ballot battle

Righting historical anachronism or land grab?

Posted
Underneath the Marriott Hotel in downtown East Lansing is a 30-year-old parking ramp. Most assume it belongs to the Marriott, but that assumption is wrong. The city owns the property, and under agreements it is required to maintain the facility in working condition.

To shed this responsibility, the City Council in 2008 asked voters for permission to sell the property to the Marriott. Despite 57 percent of voters saying yes to the proposal, the measure failed because it didn’t reach 60 percent, as required by the City Charter.

To pay for $2.5 million in needed repairs, money is being diverted from the general fund, where it could be used to finance more police, road repairs and other funding priorities, said East Lansing Mayor Nathan Triplett.

“That’s a demonstratively negative effect on the city,” East Lansing Mayor Nathan Triplett said. “That took money from the city treasury, the city and the taxpayers.”

On May 5, Triplett and East Lansing officials want voters to approve a charter amendment that would eliminate the supermajority vote requirement to sell non-park city-owned properties, if the value exceeds $4 per resident, which is about $194,000. Instead, a simple majority of support would suffice for a sale.

City officials argue the move will provide the Council with the authority to advance city developments. Opponents say the move silences dissent.

If voters approve the change, it will clear the path for the city to move forward in the Park District development proposal for the corner of Abbott and Grand River — which was rejected last fall despite being backed by City Council, developers, area leaders and ultimately nearly 57 percent of voters.

The defeat of the Marriott sale in 2008 and last year’s defeat of the sale of three parking lots in the Park District, resulted from an historical anachronism, Triplett said.

In 1944, the City of East Lansing formally adopted its charter, bringing it into compliance with a state law that required a supermajority to sell property (which it was required to follow anyway). In 1948, the state repealed this requirement. The city did not move to amend the charter.

“The irony in the charter is that to amend the charter requires only a simple majority, that’s 50 percent plus one,” said Triplett. “But to even consider selling city owned property — other than parks — requires a supermajority approval of the public.”

Selling city park property also only requires a simple majority vote, Triplett noted. “What this comes down to is should we allow a minority, a vocal minority, to overrule the majority will?” said Triplett. “Essentially should we give them a heckler’s veto?” Community activists Donald Powers and James Anderson, of the group Neighborhood’s First, argue this is not about hecklers’ vetoes, it’s about checks and balances.

“There is nothing wrong with a supermajority,” said Powers. “It helps keep a rogue city council and city administration from selling off city-owned properties.”

“A supermajority of the tax revenues come from the homeowners,” says Anderson. “Why shouldn’t there be a supermajority to sell city properties? That’s where I am.”

Anderson says the ballot measure to lower the approval threshold will lead to the city amassing more debt through development agreements.

Powers said the parking lot ballot was rejected because voters “didn’t trust the city and the administration because of the City Center II.” That development project fell apart after nearly a decade because developers were unable to garner the necessary funds.

“We don’t want to make it easy for them to sell off city assets,” Powers said. “We did not purchase them to sell. We bought them for the public good.”

DTN Management Co. of Lansing Township had a proposal moving through the planning process to develop the intersection of Grand River Avenue and Abbot Road in an area being called the Park District, which also includes the parking lots. East Lansing developer Scott Chappelle’s plan — City Center II — to develop the property collapsed in 2013 over financial concerns. DTN withdrew the plan after voters rejected the parking lot sales.

Triplett noted last autumn in the lead-up to the vote to sell the three parking lots that the failure of City Center II proved the city’s process worked.

“When you look at City Center II, the project would have added significant vitality to East Lansing’s downtown, but the finances were not there, and so the Council unanimously approved a motion that I myself, in fact, made to determine the project was not viable and pulled the plug,” Triplett said in an interview on City Pulse Radio. “There is an attempt to make City Center II into a boogeyman, and, trust me, no one would have liked more than me to move forward with the revitalization of this part of downtown sooner.”

But for Powers and Anderson, the sale of city property comes down to enriching developers on the backs of residents.

“We bought the land in a high-value market, now we want to sell it and give that money back to the developers,” said Powers. Referring to possible tax incentives for developing the properties., he said, “It’s not using good common sense."

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here




Connect with us