In My Humble Opinion

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.