Commentary
Dunes Approvals
The Dunes received a major subdivision plat approval and site plan approval from the Culver Plan Commission on June 18th and from the Culver Town Council on June 26th. This was somewhat a foregone conclusion since Culver has been working with the developer for over a year on this project. It was interesting though that neither entity passed these approvals unanimously.
The preponderance of people in attendance at the meetings were against the project. Some in its entirety, but most in its scale. Some (falsely in my opinion) called the Town to task for not communicating enough and not listening to concerns. (If there is one thing that I would say Culver is above average in, it’s communication with its citizens…) There were also those that attempted to complain on both sides of the issues, saying it was too big, but might be left incomplete; it was being pushed to quickly, but the developer shouldn’t be give 8 years to complete it; it was not planned to be part of the community, but but it should be connected directly to State Road 17, to direct traffic out of community.
I remain generally in favor of the project. I am a little disappointed in the the follow through on requirements the town had placed on the project. The project presentation to the plan commission has been delayed twice because of engineering questions being unanswered. As presented, at the meeting, most of those were answered “in concept”, but details were still not complete. There were also pending questions regarding the projects connection to South Main Street that were not complete. And then there was the statement from the developer that the town would be receiving a lot of money from increased TIF capture on this project which could be directed towards some of the short falls in water and sewer needs. Many of these things affect adjacent property owners, including a wetlands and the town’s own well field, while the money being proposed for water and sewer improvements had previously been suggested for other TIF district needs not connected to this project. I would have liked to have seen all these things tied down before authorizing them to proceed.
I was pleased that many of the questions from the audience were addressed, but I have concerns with their substantiation. I do not in anyway want to speak ill of the developer and their honesty regarding the project, but the answers given were off-the-cuff, having little if any documentation or requirements of follow-through. Many of the questions were, frankly, not the business of anyone but project investors, but the reassurances carried no weight. While I trust that everything said was in good faith, there is nothing that keeps them from changing direction on them if economics of the project suggest better uses of funds. As suggested here before (second to last paragraph), their development agreement included none of the delineated requirements seen in past agreements.
That said, I think many of those protesting this development fail to understand that this project was not a surprise, but something that has been in the Town of Culver’s plans and one of their goals for over a decade. When the Culver Garden Court property was annexed around 2010, the surrounding property was annexed as well. It was rezoned as R-2 to promote housing in that area. When the last revisions to the Culver Zoning Ordinance were completed, R-2 was rewritten to allow higher density developments. The 2014 Comprehensive Plan suggested, due to citizen input, that more housing is needed. The Stellar Communities surveys of 2016 and 2017 indicated more housing is needed. The 2024 Comprehensive Plan still indicated the need for more housing, even with The Dunes under discussion. This was not a project that required a rezoning or multiple variances to make happen. It fits with the planned development of the town.
Do I think things might have been done better? Always. Until I’m appointed benevolent dictator, I will most likely always see alternatives that I would have pursued. (I still have questions about whether it follows the Culver Complete Streets Ordinance, whether there were drywells added, where they drain and who owned them, and whether the wetlands have been properly addressed, etc.) Do I think those in charge were (mostly) following the will of the majority of citizens? Yes.
Rick Hensley
Easterday Construction Co., Inc. has lost another good friend. Rick passed away last week and I attended his funeral today. Rick battled cancer against the odds his Doctors were giving him, and he outlived the expiration date they gave him through sheer will and love for his family. He always had a passion for life and a positive attitude. Losing this friend at only 45 years old is heartbreaking.
Rick and his company, Artizan Flooring, has done multiple projects for us over the years. I’ve never had a second thought about taking him to meet a client. He not only made a good impression for himself and his company, but also for Easterday Construction. He also respected that relationship, looking out for our reputation as well as his. I could always trust him to make the best recommendation possible and to follow through on whatever he said. He would never consider end-running us on a client we introduced to him.
As an example of Rick’s integrity, on one of our first projects together, he made a recommendation at Sand Hill Farm Apartments for the installation of a sound dampening underlayment beneath the vinyl plank flooring in the second floor units. Within 6 months of the installation, the vinyl plank began losing adhesion and curling. Rick fought with the manufacturer over this and when he received no satisfaction from them, he removed the plank, removed the underlayment and reinstalled the plank at no cost to us… because he had told us it would work and it didn’t. That made a huge impression.
While Rick will be missed, we hope to continue our relationship with his wife Amber. She assumed the leadership of Artizan Flooring when Rick had to step back and continues to move the business forward. If you have any flooring or tile needs, please search them out at their Plymouth store. I am confident they will continue forward with Rick’s credo.
GC Horizons at the Plymouth Common Council
It was a very disheartening meeting of the Plymouth Common Council this past week. What should have been a relatively easy vote for the council, acting on the Plymouth Plan Commission‘s recommendation to rezone property for Garden Court’s GC Horizons project, went nowhere because of misunderstandings, miscommunications and emotional responses. The arguments at the plan commission meeting, some of them not much more than mudslinging, were apparently repeated over the last week, inundating the council with calls, texts and emails. The Plan Director, Ralph Booker, was not allowed to make his presentation nor present the recommendation of the Plan Commission. With no discussion, a motion to deny the rezoning was made, seconded and passed 4 to 2.
Some of the comments from the board after the vote were difficult to hear. It was said that this wasn’t the right location… This site was found after a year of searching, because the council voted down the site we presented last year. We vetted a dozen sites, some turned down by the City in pre-discussions and some because property owners were unwilling to sell or unable to make a decision to sell. This was a good site, following the Comprehensive Plan in a transitional neighborhood, adding apartments and single family homes in an existing neighborhood with apartments and single family homes.
The project was conflated with the motels on the north side of town, but not as a solution… just a spreading of the problem. Paraphrasing one statement made, “We (City, Council) should be directing our funds and efforts towards the motel issue instead of this project.” This is a specious argument since Garden Court has not requested any funds from the City. This project would bring in $14MM in outside investment to the community and put a new property on the tax rolls, maybe delayed by an abatement, but still, a property paying taxes above the current farmland rate. There is nothing preventing the City from investing in a different motel solution. These are different projects!
The volunteer Garden Court board stepped up to the challenge of helping with the housing problems in Plymouth with this project. They were encouraged by IHCDA, providing training and offered $14MM in capital investment. It is not the total solution, but it would have been a great first step. Hopefully, the effort hasn’t been completely in vain, but like me, many involved are feeling unappreciated and beaten down. Garden Court’s name has been dragged through the mud throughout these discussions. These were undeserved attacks on their reputation. We’ll see how or if this moves forward. Disheartening…
An Odd Juxtaposition this Week
On Thursday we had the Ribbon Cutting for Riverside Commons Apartments in Plymouth and LaPaz Commons Apartments in LaPaz. This project resulted from Marshall County Crossroads‘ Stellar Designation. Matthew Celmer spoke on behalf of the Crossroads committee. Gary Neidig spoke on behalf of One Marshall County, the new reiteration of Crossroads. Mayor Listenberger spoke on behalf of the City of Plymouth. Alan Rakowski, Director of Real Estate Acquisition, for IHCDA spoke as well. It was also nice to see Don Ecker there representing the Plymouth Common Council, Lynn Gorski, Clerk Treasurer, representing the Plymouth Clerks’ office and Ralph Booker representing the Plymouth Plan Commission. All of them praised the new development and the what it would do for the City of Plymouth. (Marty Oosterbaan was there as a former Crossroads’ leader. He was also responsible for a lot of help in pulling the Ribbon Cutting together.) Thanks also to Easterday Construction Co., Inc. Project Superintendent, Bob Cooper, and Office Manager, Julie Heise for their help throughout the project and at the Ribbon Cutting.
The juxtaposition occurred later that day when a letter began circulating around Plymouth, on Facebook, and in other venues, condemning the Mayor and others such as myself involved with the proposed GC Horizons project – a project very similar to Riverside Commons. That was followed by a negative Letter to the Editor in the Pilot News. It was odd, being praised for doing something good for the community at the Ribbon Cutting and then later the same day, being attacked on Facebook for wanting to do more of the same.
Riverside Commons and the proposed GC Horizons are both IHCDA RHTC (Rental Housing Tax Credit) projects. The only difference is that GC Horizons will include 8 PSH (Permanent Supportive Housing) units similar to those at Serenity Place – 8 of the 34 total units. The “GC” in GC Horizons stands for Garden Court. Garden Count has been a respected not-for-profit entity providing affordable housing to the community for decades. They were also denigrated for attempting to do more good in the community.
While I know it’s unwise to feed the trolls by attempting to rebut their falsehoods online, I thought it worthwhile to present some of the facts here:
- Garden Court is a true not-for-profit (NFP). Their board is totally volunteers and they recruit board members from all of the communities that have Garden Court facilities in them. The board members receive no compensation for their participation. Maybe it’s not their official mission statement, but from my association with them, there mission is to provide clean, safe housing for underserved populations in Plymouth and the surrounding area. (They haven’t even invested in a website! More about them pops up from our website than anywhere else.)
- Garden Court is the best landlord/property owner with which we have worked. Because they are a NFP, their bottom line is to cover expenses. They have no employees or shareholders to compensate. That lets them put all the money to work for the best facility possible.
- Garden Court requires their management team to vet applicants and residents. They do no allow applicants that fail their strict criteria to become residents. Their facilities are well maintained and I have experienced a sense of pride and ownership in their residents.
- Garden Court was invited to the IHDCA Housing Institute for several reasons: One being their past work in Plymouth with Serenity Place and another being IHCDA’s recognition of the need in Plymouth. This opportunity was designated for Plymouth, not for other Marshall County communities.
- Serenity Place experienced some issues in the first six months of operation that resulted in police calls. Once an equilibrium was established and some of the trouble makers were removed, those police calls tapered off. There was a learning curve for both new residents and management. This has not been a continuing problem.
- GC Horizons will receive tax credit funding through IHCDA, but it is not a tax exempt project. Sales tax is required on the construction. Property taxes will be assessed and collected on the property at some point.
- GC Horizons will not draw its tenants from outside Marshall County. The list of deserving and qualified applicants in Plymouth and Marshall County will be the pool from which they draw. There is a long list…
- GC Horizons would love to move some of the north side motel residents into their facilities! The ones that meet the application standards and are looking to improve their situation… It’s unfortunate that there are bad apples in the motels, but there are also good people deserving a chance at better living conditions and the hope of getting on their feet and changing their lot in life.
- GC Horizons has no ability or desire to circumvent laws, restraining orders or other legal devices that protect schools from past offenders.
- GC Horizons is not a Mayor Listenberger project. The community team that began this journey at the IHCDA institute was formed a couple of years ago. The former City Attorney was part of that team because the previous administration recognized the community need. Mayor Listenberger’s support is a continuation of that recognition of need.
There were other specious Facebook comments that were just mean spirited and unworthy of responses. Few of them suggested alternate solutions, though at least one’s solution advocated violence and destruction of property. The negativity is hard to shake off. That said, one thing stood out from the Riverside Commons Ribbon Cutting on Thursday… We had a two story townhouse unit open after the ribbon cutting for guests to tour. Everyone was complimentary. As I was walking out with a couple of guests, there were two women sitting and talking on a neighboring porch. One of the women asked if we liked the unit? She then asked if we would like to see one of the flats, since she lived in a flat. I smiled and thanked her, saying I was familiar since I was part of the construction team. She smiled broadly and proceeded to tell me how happy she was with her new apartment, how she had made new friends there and how there was a sense of community. She ended it saying thank you for making the apartments available to her. She is one of the reasons for doing this and her heartfelt, unsolicited gratitude helps as some of the negativity comes my way.
Chevron Deference
July 8, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Personal, Politics
Commentary, Community, government, Trends
I wrote a bit on this last January (here) when I first heard the Chevron Deference was up for consideration by the Supreme Court. (Kiplinger’s follow-up article here.) Now there seems to be a huge uproar over this or to paraphrase the words of Charlie Daniels: They’re all out there steppin’ an’ fetchin’, like their heads are on fire and their asses are catchin’… (from Uneasy Rider)
Saying that we’ve always done it this way, fails to recognize that the Chevron Deference is a product of the 80’s, not something springing from the Constitution. It was a case where the courts gave up their constitutional power to interpret laws, ceding it to the administrative agencies. This has been abused by the agencies and aided by lazy lawmakers, who intentionally or unintentionally write ambiguous legislation.
Unfortunately, the agencies are abusing their power over their clients, the citizens of the United States, while also ignoring their bosses, the Senators and Representatives that write the laws. (Check out this video of Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, schooling Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, on the way that agency is disregarding very specific language in a Law he wrote and helped pass.) Unambiguous language in legislation is rare, but even when it’s in place, it requires legislators to be enforcers, as with the above video or citizens to risk their livelihoods taking them to court. The Chevron Deference had been used to give the advantage in these situations to the agencies as the de facto experts.
I seriously feel that the various bureaucratic agencies are being allowed to run the show. Even granting them the benefit of the doubt on knowing a lot about the things they oversee, bureaucracies tend to be invasive. They try and make themselves seem more valuable by growing and inserting themselves into more things. This is true with private bureaucracies and seemingly more so with public bureaucracies. When President Biden said we’re going to add 80,000 more IRS agents, I never heard the IRS say, they could get by with 50,000 or even lets start with 30,000 and see how it goes… No, they gladly accepted the growth, the larger budget and the increase power that came with this.
IRS: You owe us money. It’s called taxes. Me: How much do I owe? IRS: You have to figure that out. Me: I just pay what I want? IRS: Oh, no! We know exactly how much you owe. But you have to guess that number too. Me: What if I get it wrong? IRS: You go to prison. ME: [rifling through papers] Ok this is all kind of confusing, but I think this is how much I owe. IRS: Yikes, looks like you missed a number somewhere. I guess you’re going to prison. ME: [being handcuffed] Can’t argue with justice! – Jordan Stratton
As I mentioned on the previous post here, the agencies’ positions and enforcement can swing wildly based on whichever party is in office. Taking the political positions out, at least as much as possible, by putting it back in the hands of the judiciary, seem prudent. Acknowledging their expertise in these things, it would make more sense to bring them in when the law is being crafted rather than waiting until it’s in place and subject to their, sometimes bias, interpretation.
The striking down of the Chevron Deference seems to make perfect sense to me, but only time will tell. While in place, it was interpreted broadly, which caused the problems leading to the Supreme Court’s review. Doing away with it may create a new set of unintended consequences, but with government in general, less is better…
0 comments