Response to Supervisor's comment

Open Discussion - for our Readers, Islanders, and Web Site Visitors alike. Discussion regarding any and all aspects of Beaver Island are welcome here. Also a place for general Beaver Island conversation and discussion.

Moderator: Gillespie

Post Reply
Robert Cole

Response to Supervisor's comment

Post by Robert Cole »

The October 2003 Beaver Beacon contains an article entitled "Charlevoix County Road Commission holds meeting on Beaver Island". It is reported in this piece that the CCRC expressed it's informal approval of St. James Township's proposed extension of Main Street southward into a parking lot near the Jewell Gillespie Park/Playground.

The article reports that the County Road Commissioners asked St. James Township Supervisor Don Vyse if there had been any negative comments concerning the proposed paving project. To quote the article, Mr. Vyse "...replied that some people had been opposed to the proliferation of asphalt but had not objected to the concept of a parking lot there."

If Mr. Vyse did in fact make this assertion to the CCRC on this past September 22, he has flatly misrepresented the clearly expressed views of many citizens present at the St. James Township Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the parking lot proposal, held July 10, 2003.

Those wishing to make public comments at the Hearing were required beforehand to register their names on a sign-up sheet placed before the Planning Commission. Although the justification for this requirement remains unclear to many, the sign-up sheet will at least attest to the number and identity of people who felt the need to make a public statement on the proposal that night.

This writer took detailed notes of the Hearing's proceedings, including the identity of those who made public comments, and the nature of their comments. The Editor of the Beacon also recorded the Hearing's proceedings, and in an article on page 16 of the August 2003 Beaver Beacon states that "...it was pointed out that 9 of the first 13 speakers were against the plan...". The Beacon account corroborates this writer's notes and the memory of those who spoke against the proposal that night.

Among the objections raised there were questions concerning the supposed necessity of an "overflow" parking lot in town; the lack of any formal traffic or land use study as a component in the Planning Commission's deliberations; the supposed lack of any viable alternate site for the lot; the supposed lack of outside funding for an alternate parking lot site; the loss of greenspace around the harbor; the issue of who would be responsible for the lot's maintenance costs; potential benefits to involved property owners and those parties likely to be directly responsible for the paving project itself; and harbor water quality in the face of run-off from the asphalt.

Although the Planning Commission and H&D Engineer/Township Engineer Gary Voogt responded in turn to each of these concerns, many of those who expressed opposition to the proposal felt that the Planning Commission had failed to adequately study and address the larger issues involved, and to justify the need for and location of the lot. Several also felt that the tone of some of the Commission and Mr. Voogt's answers to the public was alternately sarcastic and dismissive.

It may be that some of those present who supported the proposal remained silent; it may also be that some of those against it cited general concerns over the proliferation of paved non-road areas on Beaver Island. But neither of these possibilities erases the very real fact that a significant number of citizens clearly and unequivocally expressed their strong opposition to applying over 11'000 feet of blacktop to a harbor-front area near a playground.

Given the above, it is regrettable that the Supervisor would characterize the majority of public opinion as being either in support of, or indifferent to, the placement of this parking lot, when the evidence shows that many of the public were set against the placement of the lot at this specific location. Not only does this act of misrepresentation grossly distort the true content of the public hearing, it further supports public perception that our elected representatives neither care for or utilize the input of the citizens they have pledged to represent, and weakens the credibility of the Supervisor.

The Public Hearing was the first time most of those assembled had even heard of the parking lot proposal. Some would argue that the cause for this is public apathy, rather than a perceived failure on the part of the Township and its bodies to conduct it's business in the open. A careful reading of the last 14 months of meeting minutes of St. James Township and its bodies, as well as as a reading of local newspapers accounts of meeting proceedings, should give weight to either the first or second theory; or perhaps a combination of the two. At any rate, these meeting minutes, and supposedly any documentation of correspondence between the Township and involved parties throughout the planning stages of this project, should in theory be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act of 1976, for those interested.

In retrospect, the complexity of the dealings carried out to advance this project, and the Public Hearing's emphasis on the parking lot aspect of this extensive plan, have served to overshadow what may prove to be an even more significant result of it: the rezoning of an involved property owner's holdings from Residential-1 to Harbor. This re-designation allows for far more commercial aplications to the properties involved than was allowed under R-1. Time will tell how this re-zoning affects the look and character of the south side of Paradise Bay, but the community would be well advised to monitor the further development of the entire area from this point forward.

There are lessons to be learned from the story of the implementaton of this project; above all, the importance of a well-informed public that early on and regularly scrutinises it's local government's proceedings. Without this public vigilance, we increase the risk of being forced to accept dramatic and permanent changes to the character and infrastructure of our community: after, not during, our Township's planning processes have played themselves out.

Before issuing it's approval or rejection, the Charlevoix County Road Commission will hold it's own Public Hearing on the proposed extension of St. James Main Street southward into a parking lot at the CCRC building in Boyne City, 11:00 A.M., November 10, 2003. Public comments on the proposal can be forwarded to the CCRC before that date.

Robert Cole
Post Reply