Editor Judy Davids firstname.lastname@example.org
6:45 pm on Friday, May 17, 2013
Well duh Ron. But that has nothing to do with the shopping center at Normandy.
12:09 am on Friday, May 17, 2013
You can always approve/disapprove of a politician's choices, votes, etc. But you do have to honestly assess that Ellison performs PR for Royal Oak quite well. That is a necessary thing in a now high profile city. If it promotes Ellison at the same time, that just goes with the territory if you do it well.
The other difference being that as chair, Ellison cannot make a motion.
12:11 am on Thursday, May 16, 2013
l.c Really?? Who needs to give a kickback when you can go in legally and get your development under law? The commercial does not have to benefit the neighborhood, that isn't how it works. What is in control is state law about zoning and planning.
You really need to inform yourself at least a little bit before you comment.
12:08 am on Thursday, May 16, 2013
Boy are you off base Karen. I watched those endless meetings about Normandy Plaza and the PC listened very carefully and there was virtually no disagreement when the final plan came through.
As for how many strip malls? State law says if it is zoned commercial, you get commercial. It isn't your property, you don't get to decide someone gets to pay a million bucks for property they can't build on.
Please voice your opinion, but get some facts first so your opinions make sense.
11:26 pm on Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The signatures were a waste of time with no effect other than annoying other people. Those folks have no clue about the legalities that bind the Planning Commission and ZBA. But Kroger's plan was lousy to the Planning Commission did what they should have and dumped it.
11:21 pm on Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Ms Harrison, You were on the PC for years. You know under Michigan law the Planning Commission cannot refuse plans that meet ordinances, like the one presented for Normandy and Crooks. So why the silly comment? I don't think anyone but the developer wants it there, but since the board sold the property, that is the way it is.
Ms Harrison, You were on the PC for years. You know under Michigan the Planning Commission cannot refuse plans that meet ordinances, like the one presented for Normandy and Crooks. So why the silly comment? I don't think anyone but the developer wants it there, but since the board sold the property, that is the way it is.
11:16 pm on Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Duke, The school board sold their former properties due to huge pressure from the residents to sell them and get the money. So they did and here we are.
11:50 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
I would prefer this not pass But with garage/house spacing and trees, the restrictions built in functionally eliminate a huge amount of houses. None of the houses on my side of my street would qualify. Of course, being in back yards, almost no violations will be reported or dealt with.
Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information.
Learn more »
If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your next click should be right here.
Learn more »
Royal Oak news, events, and deals sent to you daily and breaking news as it happens.
See more options
You’re now signed up!
Enter your tip here and it will be sent straight to
Editor Judy Davids, Scott Raynor, Jessica Schrader, Mike Niziolek, Mark H. Stowers, Detroit Medical Center, and Joel Kahn, MD,
Royal Oak Patch's (incredibly grateful)