Monday, August 6, 2018

Vote NO on the Bloomfield Township PROPOSAL/ Safety Paths

Hi All,


Besides voting for candidates that will be chosen for the NOVEMBER 2018 ballot ,   there are two other  PROPOSALS  that ask for a YES or NO  vote.  
Below are those two proposals.
Both are "renewals" but the SMART proposal is also an increase !
1.  SMART:   for public transportation.  I do know that the Bloomfield Township Senior Center has several SMART buses ( but often sit unused)   but I'll leave the yes or no vote on this issue for you to decide. Please note that this  SMART  ballot is also asking for an increase as well as the renewal !   Four years request.   Personally,  I voted NO.

2.  SAFETY PATH:   Bloomfield Township has been requesting money for safety paths since 1998.

I say vote NO.... on the Safety Path proposal because the township continues to award NO BID contracts to the same contractor, year after year... with NO definite itemized contract for EACH of the different safety path projects.   The township just awards a "not to exceed"  contract for the year.  Yet, even those contracts are sometimes changed.
I also say vote NO on this proposal because the township has added an employee costs ($45,000 to $55,000)  a year on the expenses side (beginning in 2014)  and also has added the cost of vehicles.  Latest one is a $78,000 vehicle.    This millage should NOT be used for employee wages/benefits/pension  nor for vehicle purchases.  My opinion.

Another reason to vote NO  is simply the lack of transparency of the entire FUND.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

W & S Lawsuit: Plaintiff's Attorney Posts Information and More

Hi All,
Here is some very interesting information found on the Plaintiff's attorneys' website concerning the Class Action Lawsuit (Youmans vs Bl. Twp).
From the main website of KickhamHanley - here is a short cut link to this case:

On July 12, 2018  there was a four hour reading into the record at Oakland County Court House by Judge Daniel P. O'Brien.   That is now a printed TRANSCRIPT and is listed as "Court's Opinion After Trial" on the KickhamHanley website .

The " Summary of the Court's Opinion After Trial"   was written by Plaintiff's Attorneys.  Very interesting  summary with dollar figures discussed. 

Below are the listed items found on the  WEBSITE of KickhamHanley

Jamila Youmans v Charter Township of Bloomfield Case No. 16-152613-CZ

First Amended Complaint
Answer to First Amended Complaint
Order for Class Certification
Order Authorizing Class Notice
Class Notice
Order Denying Motions
Court's Opinion After Trial
Summary of the Court's Opinion After Trial
FYI:   THERE IS ALSO AN ARTICLE, written by Lisa Brody, quoting the Bloomfield Township's attorney, William Hampton, (and perhaps input from others from the township) as to his (their) understanding of the July 12, 2018  Court House "reading into the record".   That article (presented below)  concludes a different view of the proceeding, in my opinion.
At the time of the interview,  the transcript from the court was not printed.  However, it seems that the publication only sought comment from one side of the issue:   Bloomfield Township's .
Read that article here:
From a local publication:  Downtown NewsMagazine  
******************************** MORE*******************************
FYI:   here is the township website
FYI:  you won't find the last three years of the  W & S budget under BUDGET on the township website  as the township discontinued putting that department on the Annual Budget review agenda.  MAJOR LACK OF TRANSPARENCY... by design, my opinion.
FYI:  For this year's budget review by the Board of Trustees at a Study Session which is missing the Water and Sewer department:  see the Board Packet/ Board of Trustees/ Study Session/  2/28/18  
FYI:  the township did discuss the water and sewer RATES at a different study session on March 20, 2018 for the 2018-2019 fiscal year.  See the Board Packet/ Board of Trustees/ Study Session/ 3/20/18   
FYI:   Some other related blogs by me on Water and Sewer issues over the past six years:



Sunday, July 15, 2018

BHSD Doyle Center Property to Developer: Lot Split/Site Plan

Hi All,
The Bloomfield Township Planning Commission meeting is MONDAY,  July 16, 2018.

This Board also handles any " Wetlands " issues.   Therefore, both meetings will be this Monday starting at 7 pm.  

The main issue is a proposed new RESIDENTIAL development on BHSD
(Bloomfield Hills School District) property to be "traded" to a developer in exchange for a smaller parcel owned by the developer adjacent to the school's nature center property.

Details of that entire "trade" situation can be found in a previous blog:
 FYI:   There is also a very long "comment"  from a reader that is interesting to read.

On the agenda:    PUBLIC HEARING....   YOU MAY SPEAK AT THIS MEETING   even though the posted agenda does not say Public Hearing.   I've had this argument with the township for years.   Public Hearings should be so noted AND posted under the "Legal" section of the township website.  In fact,  this agenda posting even leaves OUT the fact that a LOT SPLIT is ALSO under consideration.

FROM   a  July 12, 2018 internal memo from Patti Voelker, Planning Director to Supervisor Leo Savoie:

The  Planning Commission PACKET  includes pages of details relating to this proposed project.
There is a CJ (Consent Judgment) associated with this property that Township Attorney, William Hampton negotiated and the Township Board approved.

HOWEVER,  I believe that the BHSD should never had interfered with an active lawsuit between the Township and the developer, NVTN Acquisition, LLC.    Because BHSD did interfere,  the township was forced to certain conditions to the new development...according to the CJ or continue with the lawsuit.  I think the Township should have finished the lawsuit.

From the July 16, 2018 PC PACKET

For instance,  the CJ  allows the developer to build using the :

BUT THE CJ  allows the developer to use LESS than 50% open space of  HIS property  and in order to fulfill the 50% ordinance rule,  the Developer is  USING SCHOOL LAND  that the developers don't own!   Therefore, more homes may be put on the property than the ordinance allows.

More about Open Space Preservation vs R-1 Single Family