.
Feedback

Royal Oak: A Victim Of Its Own Success?

Will Royal Oak be a victim of its own success, or will it take advantage of its popularity as a destination and adapt by supplying additional vertical parking and a downtown park?

Last night Saturday we had a warm spell and I decided on my way to Oak Park to stop at the Carribou after noticing a friend's bicycle. There were no parking spaces to be found anywhere downtown.  It was packed.  I had to park in a lot on the other side of the track, seventy five cents an hour! I had an ephiphany, they are right, this city makes over a million dollars a year just in parking revenue!! There is new construction, new homes, condos, DMC coming why all the crocodile tears? Where does it all go?  Pensions, yes but something needs to be done.  We do need to fix up the park downtown but what we need most of all is another downtown parking structure. I notice at least three good locations. 1. The parking lot across the track from Hamlins. 2. Even better, the parking lot behind Adriana's and Beirut. 3. The best is one on the Fresard property across from the existing one on Washington if a deal can be worked out with David Griffen, 400 Main LLC, and Emagine Theater Paul Glantz.  I left messages for Glantz but could not get a hold of Griffen.

The profit on parking structures is marginal, however the profit on the other end for Emagine, and the present and future businesses near eleven and Main would be significant. Especially if the new hotel, apartments and office proposals by 400 Main goes through. It does not take an accountant to see that downtown Royal Oak is truly a victim of its own success.  With a more pro-active DDA and planning commission this is possible. Businesses need to extend their hours a little more, the sidewalks roll up too early with the exception of the bars. This is the most walkable city in Oakland County including Detroit and it could be made even more walkable with a downtown park.  One or two additional parking structures would free up some land around city city hall so the park can be expanded. There is also the lot adjacent to Farmers Market and I believe another building on fourth street.

We just have to get over stupid fear of homeless sleeping on benches and molesting passer bys (I read the comments). We are rebooting our police department and for ***#*sake the department is next to the park! In the description of the improvements made to our library a few years ago there is  mention of the outside park included as part of the library.  It would be a good idea to give over to the library the job of forming a committee along with parks and recreation to immediately improve that area using the new ideas of adopt a park along with a motivated DDA that would like to see more foot traffic downtown all year around.

Collateral benefits of vertical downtown parking and park improvement would be a rise in property values throughout the city over what has already happened.  All the progress the city has made so far will have a cap put on it without more vertical parking downtown, with a more walkable attractive downtown park. It does not take a genius to see that what supports a city is an influx of young families and good schools which must be backed by a self supporting downtown.

Jim Rasor's grandiose dream of a greatly enlarged central park will have to be put off for another generation. That is obvious with the problems our present commissioners have in supporting and cooperating with our city's ethics ordinance. We all have to step back a little to see the forest for the trees.  For every major improvement there also comes a set back, but those minor set backs can be dealt with now that we have the tax base to do it. We need leadership that realizes that everybody cannot be pleased and is willing to work together when the city's goals are finally prioritized. One issue such as a hotel is not going to solve the problem and unless the leaks are plugged and the course is set the ship will flounder in time. Citizen's can help catalyze our commission by attending more meetings in force. We need to support our outspoken and concerned board members as presently we have too many both elected and appointed who are just paddling their own canoes.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Royal Oak Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Ronald Wolf January 23, 2013 at 04:44 am
If I was not clear let me ask once again to argue for a small city income tax that will bring in much more money from non-residents than residents and will not affect retirees, property taxes, or those on a smaller income such as students and working seniors, yet to be determined by this city. This tax is aimed that the big fish who feed without leaving as much as a tip (except for our politcal campaign funds ahem).
How about some support? As a retiree I do not have a dog in this fight, but if you add it up a city income tax that must be kept small and non discriminatory to residents vs non residents is long overdue now that RO has blossomed, or fattened depending on your viewpoint.
Ronald Wolf January 23, 2013 at 05:58 am
In case a previous comment of mine did not go through I want to again thank Joseph for pointing out the direct corelation between the number of bars and police arrests which all who have eyes to see have noticed. And thankyou Debbie Campbell for providing a sample of the drug related arrests also directly corelated with bars that cater to crowds instead of diners. There seems to be a misunderstanding that our commissioners are asking for additional parking structures en masse. Nothing is farther from the truth, they are all taking a breather after the sucessful passing of the last milage. As so many commentators have correctly surmised the latest explosion in bars, bar expansions, coupled with the increasing success of the EMagine has resulted in this need. That some commissioners put the cart before the horse is unfortunately too typical.
A new parking structure whether private or publically paid for is necessary and I would prefer the former to the latter coupled with a city income tax to take advantage of the private ownership. This is more of a CBD problem than a residential problem although residential use of their own downtown will be adversely affected without an additional structure. Diito with police overtime dealing with circling cars and weekend gridlock.
Mark Itall January 23, 2013 at 07:10 am
Okay with calling you Holmes, he is pompous too. I know the word, you need a dictionary to review the meaning. Pecadillo is a small sin or fault, not the diatribe you wrote. I wanted you to be more specific and you weren't, you just wandered off verbally. "The best is one on the Fresard property across from the existing one on Washington". The only parking structures on Washington are the Center Street structure by the Post Office and OCC's structures south of Lincoln. I believe you mean East of Main @ University? Hamlin's is not near any tracks, it will be on N. Main @ University. Elementary my dear Holmes. The city is legally obligated to fund parking in the CBD, but the profits from the parking system have been spent in the general budget for many years, making it very difficult to save the needed cash to go with new bonding. FYI, the Center Street structure cannot be enlarged, too old. It would have to be replaced if larger was desired there. You are correct that structures is the way to go, simply to reduce the dead space footprint. Trouble is people only want to park out front, just like you did, and don't go to a structure, just like you didn't. The Lafayette structures always have spaces, too many people unwilling to walk 3 blocks. Michigan cities have been able to levy an income tax since 1964, there are 22 at this time.
Ronald Wolf January 23, 2013 at 10:40 am
I apologize for confusing Washington with University which is unforgivable as I live near University. My wires get crossed. I still stick to my beliefs based on my experience in big cities that vertical parking while not economically viable by itself is a necessary evil for a busy downtown that has exploded as much as ours has. You are right about Lafayette, the brain trust that plans this downtown will not post signs such "structure parking, short and long term" with an arrow placed strategically on Main and Fourth as well as other locations. This does not solve the problem that is going to explode around eleven and Main if the Fresard is ever fully developed adding the corner bar soon to open on University and Main. Emagine is more than three blocks from Lafayette I believe. Maybe I can get your e-mail and have you proof read before I publish (seriously). Even Holmes needs a sounding board.
Bob January 23, 2013 at 02:27 pm
Thank you Mark. You are quite correct with the description of the parking fund and how it has been raided over the years.
As for Mr. Wolf, he appears to have a tendency for posting a WHOLE LOTTA WORDS strung together in an unintelligible manner. Using big words, that we do know the meaning of by the way, is not impressive. A city income tax will hit the working residents much harder than he realizes. I'll tell ya what. If retirees agree to handle 20% of the property tax burden of the working stiffs, I'll support a city income tax.
Oaktown January 23, 2013 at 04:28 pm
#1) Whether a city income tax is positive/negative or neutral for the community, the city commission has never had a focused public discussion hashing out the pros and cons of such a proposal. They invest zero time on this, and searching for alternative revenue streams is so very important.
2) The city raids the parking fund on a yearly basis to balance the general fund, instead of truly addressing their budgetary structural deficit. This in turn, forces the city to bond out for a greater dollar amount when it comes time to build another parking structure. Another way to put it, instead of paying cash from the parking fund, they will use a credit card. 3) Over the years, the city has exasperated the parking shortage issue by continuing to approve 400 + seat bar/restaurants, and granting 200+ parking waivers for major developments like the Freed project, and Emagine Theater. Even though the bars are in the CBD, the commission holds the power of denial on a liquor license if they don't have enough parking. They've approved them anyway. Now, they want the taxpayers to charge a parking deck via bonding? How about better planning during the approval process?
Ronald Wolf January 23, 2013 at 08:08 pm
Bob, thanks for your input. I admit I get carried away, pick up words and sometimes abuse them, if not entirely misuse them in what I think is called a "malapropism" so common where I spend my "yute, or "youth" (Brooklyn). Will try to tone it down. Pecidillo, armadillo what's the diff.
At least people are still reading. Oaktown, you it the nail on the head. The raiding of funds is a much more serious ethics violation than anyattempted abuse of position for profit. It is not uncommon and there needs to be more stringent guidelines set so the public is at least notified and asked for permission before the city borrows from Peter to pay Paul. A city income tax can be a life saver, or just another fund to abuse. This is why we need real transparency, not just promises and "trust me's from city hall I still think we need a better accounting for what was really spent for Arts Beats & Eats where somef businesses made good money, however how did that benefit those outside the footprint and residents as a whole?. Giving due credit to Mr Witz without the help of volunteers which our fair city has in abundance those charities would not have succeeded so well. Maybe city hall can take a lesson on how to mobilize citizens from Mr. Witz. See also Benjamin Franklin's comments on the value of volunteers. PS I kind of dislike using the pronoun "They" , they are really us because we technically approved "them" before we elected them. It is true that "they" sometimes forget that.
Larry D January 24, 2013 at 03:42 am
Whether new parking facilities are paid for in cash or by bonding, the money to pay for the parking facilities comes from parking revenues, not the general fund.
K.M. January 24, 2013 at 04:02 am
No one has claimed that any future parking decks would be paid from the general fund. I believe the point Oaktown makes is that instead of paying cash from parking fund reserves (or minimalizing the amount the city bonds out for), instead, the city will be bonding out for the entire amount.
Ronald Wolf January 24, 2013 at 04:57 am
KM I am like most of us disgusted with non resident business owners who sandbag off the city for needed improvements where they are the main benefactors. Have you noticed not one non resident owned local business ever comments on this site?They go home to their bedroom communities and read their local Patches.
I hate to see the same mistakes repeated. I do not care if through the DDA or whatever but downtown has to PUT its money where its mouth is and ante up for a good percentage of the cost through a CBD/DDA owned bond of at least a third before any of our tax dollars are used, otherwise NUTS- no parking structure, and our city can make up extra costs for police through increased inspections and tickets for overserving etc. I want to finish by saying thankyou to those local establishments with a conscience who donate to local schools and charities, it is just that this is not enough. Taxpayers are not ATM's for city hall "mistakes". I
Ronald Wolf January 24, 2013 at 05:04 am
Larry, not if the allegations that the parking fund is raided to supplement the general fund is true, and I suspect it is.
Slim Jim January 24, 2013 at 07:20 pm
The city is only concerned about the downtown and treats the neighborhoods like the proverbial red headed stepchild. Our 12 year old son plays baseball. Except for Memorial Park, the ballfields in this town are atrocious compared to other communities in Oakland County. This year we've decided to drop from the Royal Oak league, because of the field conditions, and have signed up with a travel league out of Troy.
Bob January 24, 2013 at 08:52 pm
I don't think it's an allegation.
Ray Smith January 24, 2013 at 09:38 pm
I've also heard that the City routinely transfers money from the parking fund to the general fund for balancing purposes. I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, from my knowledge, it's a pretty common practice among municipalities.
Tom January 24, 2013 at 10:03 pm
Ray, the parking fund has a designated purpose, and that is to maintain current parking lots and facilities, to acquire property for future parking lots and facilities, and to pay for the debt of current parking structures, and the debt on future parking structures.
Its purpose isn't to be a slush fund to balance the general fund. In addition, a past city commission limited the amount that the city could access on a yearly basis. Last year, the city commission waived that limit and took even more. Perhaps you should read the parking fund policy before posting.
Mark Itall January 24, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Hardly an allegation, it has been clearly marked in the budget, discussed during CC meetings and reported in the papers and on-line for at least a decade, perhaps 2. And Larry is quite correct with the addtion that the DDA is paying for the Lafayette and 6th deck.
Larry D January 24, 2013 at 10:40 pm
K.M. I confess I don't understand the point. If you want the cash left in the parking system to minimize the cost of bonding to be paid out of parking revenues, it will come from replacing the parking revenue going to the general fund by either 1) a tax increase, or 2) diminishment of city services. These don't seem like desireable alternatives.
Ray Smith January 25, 2013 at 12:51 am
Tom, you may be right technically, but if you haven't noticed, we are not functioning within a normal economy, but rather, the worse financial downturn since the Great Depression. Consequently, actions must sometimes be taken to keep entities afloat.
Tom January 25, 2013 at 01:52 am
My response to that, Ray, is that the city has been raiding the parking fund for over a decade plus, which preceeds the latest economic meltdown. So, I would respectfully reject your explanation. It may justify the last couple of years, but not the years prior to 2008.
Raiding the parking fund is a longterm pattern of our city government, not a response to the recent economic downturn. If you read the mission of the parking fund, it does not include supplimenting the general fund. It may justify the last
Ronald Wolf January 25, 2013 at 02:00 am
Slim: maybe those lazy ginger headed kids should go out get part time jobs, sell lemonade, cookies, or raid their piggy banks (like our city does with parking). Maybe organize a special interest LLC and after that put their quarters together and pick a couple of campaigns to support. Another option is to pay for good advice from a legal specialist who assists in city relations and also sits on boards. No, changed my mind on the latter,
Not only in America. Hey Bob I have new word for you: " facetious" its a great way to convey critical disdain. Seriously, what I would like to really hear before this site runs its course is ONE elected commissioner, or mayor (I know they read Patch if only to check for a cause to threaten defamation suits), to come out with a plan to contact Lansing for viable advice options or available grants. There is also Plante and Moran whom I would rather see being paid to check city accounting and make ship tightening suggestions than pay professional meeting facilitators used mostly for the sake of appearances. This city sorely needs a part time or full time grant specialist, I believe even our city manager who mostly irks me would concur. Washington and Michigan have resources that I am certain we have not adequately tapped.
Ronald Wolf January 25, 2013 at 02:12 am
Ray, as I grew older I learned that even during the great depression there were multi-millionaires, the equivalent of todays billionaires. That is why Romney was defeated, his bankers have sand in their shoes and eat Swiss cheese, he lives in another world seen only in travalogues and the movies. Depression hits these people when they are down to only two out of state homes.
There is money, its printed every day and used for foreign relations with our friends like Afghanistan and North Korea as well as to placate what is left of a middle class. We are not "Les Miserables" yet.
Slim Jim January 25, 2013 at 02:28 am
Ron, you're a hoot!
I'm not opposed to making the gingers work a little harder, but I prefer they do hard labor taking extra batting practice and fielding extra grounders during practice. It seems cruel and unusal punishment to expect them to address and fix the things our elected officials are supposed to be doing. The city of Troy seems to agree, and our family doesn't have to worry about peddling lemons to get a decent field to play on. Cheers, Ron.
Carrot Top January 25, 2013 at 05:52 am
You guys can yuck it up at our expense for now, but one day, us gingers will rule the world. You've been warned.
Ray Smith January 25, 2013 at 07:51 pm
Tom, have you voiced your concern about the parking fund to city officials? Couldn't hurt.
Ronald Wolf January 25, 2013 at 08:19 pm
Tom, thanks for the tip. My cocern is the same as Ray's and just because "everyone does it" does not make it right. I would like to know the timing of the waiver last year that increased the monies taken from parking. I would be curious if it had anything to do with shoring up the expenses incurred from Arts Beats and Eats. That could make the stated city profit a fairy tale designed for taxpayer consumption.
Don Johnson if you have a better explantion I am sure we would like to hear it.
Ronald Wolf January 27, 2013 at 01:53 am
The British are coming! The British are coming! Now that I have your attention. Monday Jan 28th Jim Rasor plans to bring to the commission table (notified every newspaper but the patch) what he considers to be illegal and unconstitutional, which is in fact an affirmation or oath of non conflict in issues appearing before the board.
In my opinion a time wasting threat possibly to insinuate that he may pursue with costly litigation against the township for what he considers an insulting pledge of non-conflict that he fears he may be held accountable for if he violates it, such as he attempted to in my lay opinion. Also in my opinion, as his intentions were clearly to violate the ordinance as written, a fact that even our mayor cannot deny, he should apologize for. Instead he threatens Geoffrey Vasquez with defamation, and almost simultaneiously attacks commissioner Cappello threatening to prove constitutional violations. Never in the history of the this country has taking an oath or affirmation to give honest and fair judgement, not tainted by a conflict of interest been judged illegal! I would hope the commission as a whole considers its fiduciary responsibilty to protect the city from interest conflicts over a bloated egos of one or two individuals.
Ronald Wolf January 27, 2013 at 02:09 am
Whoops did I say township instead of city, sorry but could not delete or correct typos on above. Save your fingers Mark. I have not flipped yet. Bring your lanterns and voices to city hall 7:30 Monday Jan 28th. Help stop this piciune nonsense. Oath or no oath conflicts of interest are illegal in RO.. The planned oath is mean't to make sure that All commissioners including our Mayor and not just Jim Rasor are reminded to avoid conflicts before they support for example liquor licenses, or a supplicant asking for a variance.
Ronald Wolf January 30, 2013 at 06:16 am
Oaktown: You have made excellent points. Sometimes this city reminds me of a business that puts more emphasis on placing orders than keeping inventory in stock.
Ronald Wolf February 4, 2013 at 06:17 am
Governor Snyder has at least expressed his concern over ethics in government. If you have a moment please contact his office (google contact Gov Snydfer) via e-mail and phone and tell him you do not have to live in a ghetto such as Pontiac or Detroit to see ethic conflicts. Tell him to see what happens in Royal Oak as an example of when business special interests run a city by proxy. To be specific political contributions, and at least one lawyer/ commissioner with ulterior motives taking precedent over his fiduciary responsibility as an elected official. A too common phenomenon also in Wayne County involving a former Sheriff.
Ronald Wolf March 11, 2013 at 05:09 am
As that old Paul Simon ditty says: "After changes we are more or less the same". After I winessed the joke of our retuned ethics ordinance ( also a joke apparently) I plainly see what makes this commission tick.
Its not corruption in the true sense of the word, its the total lack of self policing. There are relationships between commissioners that extend to fund raisers that in this party town turns into pep rallies. These are ties that are not easily broken. So I am not surprised when Mayor Protem Patricia Capello capitulates (yes, I choose this strong word)) to her good friends Jim Rasor, and Mayor Ellison. Loyalty to ones associates and collegues is not a violation of ethics. However when ethics is the issue involved and it has to take a back seat to preserve commission unity there is in my opinion a very grave cause for resident concern. The bars where all the parties are held are not at all concerned.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Judy Davids (Editor) June 17, 2013 at 11:26 am
I took Michelle's couch to 5K class. It was awesome. More than 40 runners competed in their first 5KRead More race Sunday in Royal Oak. Woot!