Yesterday, SOP met with the Outdoor Pools Committee to talk about the
SADs further. The meeting was scheduled before SOP withheld petitions,
which meant the agenda was thrown out the window and the recent
development became the issue of the evening. I have been a part of all
of the SAD meetings except one that I couldn't make. I deeply
appreciate the time and effort that everyone on that committee has
personally given to the efforts in the last five or so months. In fact,
the amount of time we have spent on this committee was brought up
multiple times in our meeting yesterday. I understand the frustrations
that were expressed at the stalemate that we were at as a result of
withholding the petitions. The pools and this process is deeply
personal to all of us, and emotions can run high.
This is why I have written this post. Since the beginning of the SAD
process, I have been torn. I want strongly to keep the pools in
Dearborn, to maintain the gems that we all value and make our
neighborhoods so unique, those things that bring us together in the
midst of surrounding chaos. This was why I joined SOP in the first
place, not because of some misplaced nostalgia of year's gone by. But I
also believe that it's a simple matter of priorities for the Dearborn
budget and the pools wouldn't be a question anymore.
When the SAD concept was first introduced to us in late December, we
were just a month away from the millage vote and the belief that the
situation was so dire we had to reach deeper and pitch in to stay
afloat. Though we had a lot of questions, the SAD sounded like it could
be the answer to relieving the cost pressures from the city and
providing the residents with the pools they wanted. A compromise of
sorts. As we moved forward, we were able to answer some questions, but
many more came up.
I was unaware that the Outdoor Pool Committee had decided that the SADs
were our sole focus, until we had a meeting where SOP pushed the concept
of reaching out to non-profits to "lease" a pool as the mayor and city
council had suggested in previous years. We so strongly advocated for
this option before we forced residents to vote on the SAD that it came
down to a committee vote, one of the few official votes we've had. Ryan
Woods and I were the only two to vote for the idea. Even after we
suggested that we could limit the RFP to require bids to come in before
any SAD vote happened. It was added to the list of "potential back-ups"
if the SADs fail. Right next to a spray park option.
This was when I knew that SOP was not really being heard, despite being
on this committee. I had questioned it plenty of times before, such as
when we objected to any recommendation numbers for Ford Woods being
included in our presentation to the council but they were still given,
and when the arbitrary timeline that was created when we still didn't
know what the process would entail became so fixed that we had trouble
adjusting our deadlines even when we didn't get the documents in time. I
especially questioned it after multiple meetings where Ryan and I
attempted to raise questions and concerns that we heard from residents
and request information earlier in the process that the timeline said we
would get later, and we were continually met with more concern over
meeting the timelines and "moving forward" than seriously considering
the impacts of what that would mean.
My concern was solidified at the meeting on Wednesday. Granted, there
were many frustrations and hurt feelings that SOP had turned our back on
the group and had gone "rogue" with our petition withholding. This,
though, is the exact problem. I don't play games or dirty politics, I'm
not good at it and it hurts my head. I feel as if Ryan and I have been
honest and open about our opinions the whole time with this committee.
But we weren't being heard. If we were heard, the committee would
recognize that we felt the SADs were being pushed through at the wrong
time, they would know that we wanted to explore other options so the
residents wouldn't have to foot the whole bill, they would expect that
we would be very cautious with the process when we didn't have real
numbers or details to give to the people who asked us these questions
every day. Instead, the petition withholding action came as a surprise,
people took it personally, and we heard about it.
At the meeting on Wednesday, we did get some questions answered by City
Attorney Walling about the process. We were also asked what it would
take to get the petitions in and keep "moving forward." Frankly, Ryan
and I didn't have a new deadline in mind when we went into the meeting.
We wanted to get some of the questions answered and get reassurances
that the answers would keep coming before the residents had to make a
decision. As the meeting went on, the patience with our questions wore
thin. Eventually, a motion was put on the table to have SOP submit the
rest of the petitions by Friday at 5pm, or the committee would disband
completely.
What happened to the alternatives?
Have I mentioned that four of the six voting members at the meeting
yesterday represent/work for the city in some function or another? The
other two were Ryan and I. At one point, the conversation actually
included people referring to the committee as the people in the city,
excluding SOP. This may seem a petty observation but when we started
the committee we all agreed that our goal was to do what we could to
keep all six small pools open. When I suggested pushing the timeline
back to explore other options and get the answers for SADs, I was told
that no one would want to put effort into the committee for that long
and it wouldn't work.
I have been aware that the Mayor does not want to keep the small pools.
It has been abundantly clear that he has decided to keep Dunworth and
Ford Woods, and bring Ford Woods up to par with Dunworth. I know that
no matter how many blog posts or op eds we write or comments we make in
public meetings this won't change. A rather dismal version of democracy
in Dearborn for sure. However, I've understood that and seen SOP and
the Outdoor Pools Committee as the chance to come up with a reason to
keep the small pools and save it from the Mayor's budget hacksaw. I
was unaware that in the committee, too, we were facing an ultimatum.
Wednesday, the message came through loud and clear. Now, it's not only
"vote Yes on SAD or lose your pool" it's "turn in the petitions or lose
your pool." End of story. No adjourning to visit the idea later. No
going back to the drawing board. At this point, who's to say the pools
won't be poured with cement in October if the SADs don't pass? That's
not much time to explore alternative options and I believe that's
because the Mayor simply doesn't want it to happen.
So, here's my opinion on the SADs and whether we should turn in the
petitions. I think the greatest win would be if all SADs passed and the
city was forced to continue to operate the small pools despite itself.
However, I don't believe it's right or fair to put the SADs on the
residents of Dearborn at this time. I can't, with a clear mind, ask
people to pay additional money for a pool that the city can support,
just doesn't want to. I can't ask people to go through a process when I
think the process is backward and unfair. So, I don't think we should
turn in the petitions now and I don't think we should move forward with
an SAD vote.
But this doesn't mean I think the story ends here. I think SOP can keep
up the work we have been doing for three (3).....THREE YEARS. We can
keep raising money and talking to non-profits to put a solution
together. I believe the city would like the SADs to fail so that when
they pour cement in the pool they can say it was the choice of the
people. We can still prove the city wrong without being forced into a
solution that isn't right.
They say the biggest problem in every relationship is communication. I
think the City fails to realize that all city officials, department and
committee members are in a relationship with the people of Dearborn and
unhealthy communication will lead to many larger and potentially fatal
problems.
If this committee disbands, the City will effectively shut off
communication with the people of Dearborn. If the city doesn't keep
working with us toward alternatives that make sense for everyone, then
the City will prove yet again that it's not listening and doesn't care.
Perhaps the greatest message the people of Dearborn can send is on the
ballot in November 2013. It might just be the wake-up call that this
city needs.
I would not call it being petty when you've been figuratively stabbed in the back.
ReplyDeleteEven though we've been backed into a corner, not turning in petitions feels like we're blocking our only way out of the corner.
Quick Fix Criss - you make a great point and it's one that I have constantly struggled with. However, I really do believe that we have other options. I don't think the SAD is off the table completely, but maybe it will be better for another time. This year, we can work with the Community Fund to take in large donations, something we haven't had in the past years. We can also continue and ramp up our efforts at making the operation costs for the pools neutral, through partnerships or other creative ideas like what SOP has already employed. If we got to that point, maybe an SAD would make sense for the residents to cover the large capital improvement costs so they can increase their pool life 25 years.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason we feel so backed into a corner is the message we are getting from the city - it's now or never. I simply don't agree. If the city understands that and makes the pools a priority, and stops threatening to close them every time we turn around, then we can seriously consider these options and move forward in a healthy partnership to keep these pools.