Public Properties, Public Process, and the DDA

On April 4, 2011, the Ann Arbor City Council acted to shut down the RFP process that had very nearly led to the development of a hotel and conference center on the Library Lot.  We summarized some of that action in our last post of a chain on the subject.  For nearly two years we had reported on the saga of efforts (originally secret) to install a hotel and conference center as proposed by the Valiant development group atop the new underground parking garage built next to the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.  The posts and other important documents are listed on our Library Lot Conference Center page.

The effort to impose this plan on the citizens of Ann Arbor led to a remarkable uprising of civic fervor.  Its defeat felt like a victory.  But of course that wasn’t the end of the story.  The forces that were behind the idea of a hotel and conference center are still with us.  Now it appears that the concept is about to be brought forward again.

On the same night that Council laid the Valiant proposal to rest, it also passed a resolution directing the Downtown Development Authority to take charge of planning for the disposition of city-owned lots downtown.  This launched what became the DDA’s Connecting William Street process.

Map of the area DDA is planning under Connecting William Street process

I thought that Councilmember Sabra Briere did a good job of putting the history of all this into perspective in her recent constituent newsletter.  Here is some of what she said:

Over a year ago the Council passed two resolutions.  The first one had to do with ending the RFP process for the Library Lot.  This resolution included a statement that any future planning for the library lot would include a ‘robust public process.’  The second resolution requested that the DDA ‘facilitate the process of redeveloping’ five city-owned parcels.  This second resolution outlines a process that the DDA proposed to attempt a consensus on the development potential for each site.  But the final resolution didn’t call for a robust public process, and the Council didn’t question the process outlined in the resolution.  That doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been a public process, but it does mean that some of us have been dissatisfied with the way that process was conducted.

Amen to that, Sabra.  Not that the DDA hasn’t been working very hard at their task.  They appointed a special committee to review options.  The proceedings have duly been documented at their site on Connecting William Street.  They have conducted a survey and a number of public interaction events.  They employed a consultant (actually, a couple of them).  Here is the overview provided by AnnArbor.com.  But there are some major disconnects with their approach and the “robust public process” that was initially promised.  They have to do with the “the scorpion and the frog” relationship of the DDA and Ann Arbor residents.  The DDA board is composed of people whose primary interest is in developing the downtown to a maximum density and real estate value.  Residents often want a downtown that serves their needs, and consider that publicly owned lots should have a public purpose.   (The group, Public Land – Public Purpose, formed in response to the Valiant proposal, stated the point succinctly.)  These two goals are at odds.   This has been especially evident in the resistance of the DDA to the idea of a downtown park or open space.  (Ann Arbor’s Suburban Brain Problem was an early post with an admittedly snarky tone on that subject.)  In the meantime, a group (the Library Green Conservancy) has been advocating forcefully for open space, indeed, a “central park” in the downtown, on the Library Lot.  At DDA Partnership Committee meetings, the idea of a hotel on the Library Lot has resurfaced.  This is presumably supported by the Lodging_Analysis conducted by their consultant.  (This document appeared on the Connecting William Street web page at one time but has since been removed.)

Here is some more reflection from CM Sabra Briere’s newsletter:

One of the significant conflicts is about ‘density.’  For some, density is a catch phrase that indicates new construction in order to facilitate more folks living downtown.  This increase in the number of people living downtown has been something the City and its residents have talked about for decades.  At first, people talked about loft apartments.  Then, they built more condominiums.  Most recently, the increase in new residents has been due entirely to new student highrises – there are now nearly 5000 people living in downtown Ann Arbor, which is a pretty significant number in the last decade – nearly 2000 more – than there were in 2000.  All of these new residential units are supposed to help provide the means for local businesses to remain open while making the street scene more active and the cultural life more varied.
But most of us don’t really want our downtown defined by student use.  That’s one of the messages I’ve heard in the meetings on Connecting William Street.  We want a downtown that’s a magnet for children and seniors, with places for folks to sit and read their – I almost wrote newspaper – electronic device, buy a pair of shoes, have lunch, sit and watch the world go by, drink our coffee and go to a meeting or a lecture.  We want a downtown that holds events and activities we might want to attend; that we might want to show our guests, that we might want to brag about.
And for some, that means a respite from density – an offset, as it were, that’s cool and green and calm and refreshing.  Something that sounds like a park.

Now the issue (0f how we dispose of downtown parcels) is coming to a potential decision point.  The DDA is poised to present the Connecting William Street plan to a working session of the Council on January 14.

Note that the DDA has two public events scheduled before that:

• Wednesday, December 19th, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. at the Downtown Library (343 S. Fifth Ave) in the Multi-Purpose Room
• Thursday, January 3rd, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. at the DDA office (150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301)

There will be much to discuss, and a need for citizens to come to attention on this subject.

The SE Michigan Regional Transit Authority in Progress

On November 27, 2012, the Michigan Senate passed a bundle of bills aimed at setting up a Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority.  We previously reviewed this initiative.  The most recent discussion was Regional Transit in Ann Arbor and Beyond: A Matter of Governance.  The bill package languished through the summer, as was somewhat anticipated. As early as last January,  transportation consultants told the AATA Board that these bills were not likely to be taken up before the lame-duck session.  (See account by the Ann Arbor Chronicle.)

Before we get into any discussion about the political and functional implications of the passage of this package, let’s summarize the bills.  Note that serious study would be aided by consulting this authoritative overview of the major bills (SB 909, 911, 912, 967) and the analysis of SB 445 by the Senate Fiscal Agency.

Senate Bill	House equivalent	Link to text	Summary
909	5309	SB 909	Creates a Regional Transit Authority with 4 counties, described by population.
911	5311	SB 911	Provides for Vehicle License Fee ($1.20/$1000)
912	5310	SB 912	Apparently overrides local zoning for transit purposes.  Little detail.
445	not known	SB 445	Direct Comprehensive Transportation Funds to RTA; RTA would distribute. (Incl Federal funds)
967	not known	SB 967	Operate dedicated public transit lanes on highways

Conspicuously missing from the bill package passed by the Senate was a bill introduced by Senator Rebekah Warren.  Senate Bill 910 and its House counterpart HB 5312 would have allowed counties to levy a vehicle license fee of $1.80 per $1000 of the vehicle’s list price. So, for example, the owner of a vehicle valued at $20,000 would pay an additional $36 a year. Oddly, this money would be paid to the county treasurer, not to a transit authority or any transportation agency.  The fee would be in addition to existing vehicle license fees and in addition to the vehicle license fee assessed on behalf of the RTA.  (That fee would be $1.20 per $1000 valuation, so our hypothetical vehicle owner would pay $24 for the RTA plus the county fee, a total of $60 in new vehicle license fees.)  There would have to be a majority vote on a countywide ballot before the fee could be enacted.

December 5, 2012:  The House Transportation Committee reported the entire package out to the House floor without amendment.

Preliminary reports indicate that the House adjourned without final action on the RTA (December 5).

Here is the story in the Detroit News in which the measure failed to gain enough votes and was withdrawn without a final vote.  Presumably it will be reintroduced.

AnnArbor.com interviews Ann Arbor officials on the status of the RTA package and its likely effects on Ann Arbor.

December 6, 2012: The House of Representatives voted in two of the five-bill RTA package.  These can now go to the Governor for signing.

The two bills, SB 909 and SB 445, passed with bare majorities. There are 110 members, so 56 votes are required. The vote for SB 909 was 57 in favor, 50 opposed, and 3 not voting;  56 – 52 – 2 for SB 445.)  The other three bills appeared to have between 45-50 votes on the board before leadership cleared the board and suspended voting on them.   The two bills were also declared by voice vote to have immediate effect, meaning they will be law after the Governor signs them, rather than in the next legislative session.

Here are comments sent out today (Dec. 6) by Representative Rick Olson, who is retiring from the House at the end of the term.  (Emphasis added.)

If we had amended the Senate bills, they would need to go back to the Senate for concurrence with the amendments, and there are not enough Republican votes in the Senate to do so. So rather than risk losing the RTA opportunity once again, the committee approved the Senate bills as they had passed the Senate. As I am writing this, the main RTA bill (Senate Bill 909) has passed the House.  We are continuing to work on changes to some of the accompanying bills. 

As the bills stand, the bills only enable an RTA to be formed, they don’t form one. The region will need to put a plan together and then pass by a vote of the people of the region the funding mechanism. If the region cannot get its act together, there will not be a regional transit plan. If it can, then the region will be able to join the rest of the major cities in the US in providing convenient transportation to its non-motorized residents.

The Ann Arbor City Council has scheduled a special meeting to discuss the impact of the RTA bills.  Here is the Ann Arbor Chronicle’s description.

December 6, 2012: SB 911 has now been passed with 57 votes.  SB 912 was delayed again. According to MIRS, the House adjourned without action on SB 912 and SB 967. The chair of the Transportation Committee, Rep. Paul Opsommer of DeWitt, seemed to indicate that they will be brought back again.

December 7, 2012: The House is evidently not in session today, as no webcasts are scheduled.  Staff are keeping up with the action on bills.  See for example the page on SB 912, where actions are recorded in the box at the end.

December 10, 2012: The House is not in session until tomorrow.

Murph (aka Richard Murphy) has posted an analysis of why Ann Arborites should not be concerned about the RTA on his blog Common Monkeyflower.  Note that Murph is employed by the Michigan Suburbs Alliance.

The Ann Arbor City Council’s special session today at 4 p.m. has been moved to the City Council chambers from the Jury Room after a question raised about public access and also use of electronic devices (prohibited in the Justice Center).  CTN coverage still TBD.   This session is to consider a resolution asking Governor Snyder to veto the RTA package, or at least SB 909 which causes Washtenaw to be included in the RTA.

Conan Smith’s letter to the Ann Arbor City Council: Hours before the Council meets to consider a resolution calling for the Governor’s veto, Conan Smith, the mover behind Washtenaw County’s inclusion, has sent a letter imploring the Council to step back from the brink.  It had an attached document that explained aspects of the RTA at length.  Conan Smith letter to Ann Arbor City Council

The scope of Smith’s ambition with this measure can be guessed from this sentence:

Ending the balkanization of our transit systems is a fundamental reform if we are to create a system that serves the broadest set of the population and competes successfully against places like Boston, Chicago and San Francisco for federal investments.

Ann Arbor City Council, December 10, 2012 voted to pass the resolution, slightly amended. Discussion was somewhat subdued. According to the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the vote was unanimous. Ann Arbor Chronicle account of the special meeting

The story in AnnArbor.com quotes some officials who have a mixed view of the RTA.

December 11, 2012:

The Ann Arbor City Council’s final resolution regarding the RTA package is now available. DC-1 Protest SB 909 Certified Copy    The resolution removes the issue from the frenetic press of last-minute legislation and pushes it into next term.  It no longer calls on the Governor to veto the existing package.

December 12, 2012: The Ann Arbor Chronicle has now published an article detailing the discussion at the December 10 City Council meeting.  According to the article, as of noon on December 12, Governor Snyder had not signed any of the RTA bills.

December 13, 2012: The final two bills, SB 0967 and SB 0912, have still not passed the House.  (By clicking on the links to the bills, it is possible to see their status.  According to the status update, neither bill has yet been taken up again since December 6.)

Today the Detroit News published an article that quotes Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood as saying that these two bills must pass in order for Detroit and Michigan to receive the $25 million hoped for the M-1 streetcar project on Woodward Avenue. “The legislation ‘is really one of the last pieces that has to be put in place in order for us to give the green light,’ LaHood said.”

What did we tell you?  (Regional Transit in Ann Arbor and Beyond: A Matter of Governance)  It is really all about that M-1 project.

December 14, 2012: SB 912 and SB 967 passed the House “early Friday morning”. According to MIRS, the vote was 57-48 and 56-49, respectively.

The entire package has thus been passed and is expected to be signed by the Governor, since it was his package of bills at the outset.  This completes the program for a Regional Transit Authority that he laid out in his transportation talk on October 26, 2011.  (See our summary with links here.)

There are many questions to be answered, especially for us in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County who depend primarily on the AATA for our transit service.  See our early discussion of this.  Future posts will examine the effects on the AATA and its plans for a modestly expanded regional coverage in Washtenaw County.  Meanwhile, we’ll wait to see whether the plea from Ann Arbor’s City Council to remove Washtenaw from the RTA is effective (my best prediction is that it will be fruitless) and who is appointed to the RTA board, and when.

Some of the bills were passed with immediate impact.  However, Megan Owens of Transportation Riders United predicts that the RTA will take shape 90 days after signing, in March 2013. It will have fiscal authority as of October 2013 (the start of the Federal fiscal year).

Conan Smith to appoint Washtenaw County Board Members

Smith has informed the Board of Commissioners that he intends to move ahead with appointments to the Regional Transit Authority Board as soon as the RTA bills are signed.   Here is the text of his message:

Members of the Board(s) . . . next week the governor will sign SB 909 creating the Regional Transit Authority, which includes Washtenaw County.  The legislation authorizes the chair of our commission (sic) to make two appointments to the board.  I’ve discussed options with Curt and the incoming leadership team and with their support will be making these appointment before the end of the year.  The general terms are three years, but one of the initial appointment is for a single year, so that one will expire within the purview of the incoming board who can review and reappoint or replace my selection.

I’ve invited a small group of community leaders to serve as an advisory board in this process:

• Rolland (Sizemore, Jr.) as the immediate past chair and Yousef (Rabhi) as the (presumed) incoming chair;
• Michael Ford, CEO at AATA, to ensure our transit agency’s perspective is represented;
• Bill Milliken, Jr., to represent the business community; Bill served as the chair of the Washtenaw Development Council for many years and continues on the SPARK board; and
• Carolyn Grawi, Director of Advocacy and Education at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, to represent the interests of transit users.

We will post notice today that applications will be accepted through the end of next week.  The advisory committee and I will review those applications and create a short list.  From that list I will select two preferred candidates and one or two alternates.  The advisory committee will interview those individuals on December 27 at a public meeting at LLRC, present their responses to me and I will make the final appointments at that point.

It is rare that statute specifically empowers the chair to make an appointment (typically it is the “commission [sic]“), so I recognize that appointing without board approval steps outside of our standard operating procedures — hence the engagement of the advisory board and a public interview process.   I will happily ensure that you all have as much information as you desire in this process as it moves forward.

I’ll be sending a press release out this afternoon and would greatly appreciate your support in distributing it and alerting community members to this opportunity to represent the county.

NB: The body that Smith chairs is the Board of Commissioners. It is often informally called the County Commission, but no such body exists in Michigan law. The RTA legislation correctly identifies the Chair of the BOC as the responsible party in this instance.

Governor Snyder signs RTA package of bills

Governor Snyder signed the RTA package and several other bills on December 19, 2012.  Here is a picture.

Note: Subjects in this category are listed on the Transportation Page.

Local Food and Good Eating in a Season of Plenty III

As the title of this series implies and as we said in the first post, we are very fortunate to live here, and now.  Washtenaw County, Michigan produces a lot of food locally, the state of Michigan produces even more variety, and the United States has one of the most successful food economies in the world. (Here is a useful reference to our agricultural production.)  According to the state profile, Michigan ranks in the top 20 of the 50 states by some measures of production of many food types, and in the top 10 for many foods.  I suspect that the data for Washtenaw County are higher now than this  2009 profile shows.  (For an interesting discussion of what the numbers mean, see the comments in this Ann Arbor Chronicle article.)  According to one study, Michigan has a sufficiently diverse and productive agriculture to supply just over 50% of our food requirements.

From the presentation of “Full Planet, Empty Plates” by the Earth Policy Institute

Worldwide, food stocks are not meeting demand, and the trends are bad.  Lester Brown’s Earth Policy Institute has published a new book,  Full Planet, Empty Plates (quick facts summary here) that eloquently sketches a picture of increased population and decreased food production, especially where water supply is becoming limiting.  We are used to tales of starvation in countries far, far away, but it used to be said that the problem was one of distribution.  Now it is increasingly a problem of supply.  For example, Saudi Arabia, with its oil wealth, had striven to be self-sufficient in food. Wheat is a critical crop for bread-based diets in the Middle East.  But now that the Saudi water supply has been used, it is becoming almost wholly dependent on wheat imports.  Recently the Saudis have been buying up land in Africa for crop production, displacing native farmers.

Grain to feed animals is an especial problem, since much of the developing world is now demanding a diet higher in meat.  But meanwhile worldwide grain supplies are failing to rise to the demand.  Let’s just look at corn.  According to World Agricultural Outlook Board estimates, the world began 2010/2011 with a stock of 145.29 million metric tons of corn at hand, and ended the year with 127 MMT.  But the projections for 2012/2013 are a beginning stock of 131.54 MMT, ending the year with 117.27 MMT.  The projected decline is doubtless partly due to the drought in the US.  While we began the growing season expecting a yield of 15 billion bushels of corn because of expanded, aggressive planting, recent estimates are that we will have harvested just over 10 billion bushels.  The USDA report says that this is the lowest production since 2006; further, on a per-acre basis, it is the lowest average yield since 1995.  Shamefully, we are set to consume much of this corn in our automobiles.  Despite pleas from state governments, the EPA has declined to waive the mandate for increased ethanol use in automobile fuel.  According to Lester Brown, last year one-third of the US corn crop was used to produce fuel ethanol.   The USDA predicts price increases for consumers of as much as 3-4% next year.  That doesn’t sound like much, but recall that for much of our population, income is likely to stay the same or decrease.

Remember that our commodity crops – even those produced in Michigan – go into the worldwide market.  So as the worldwide supply falls short, we will be competing on a world-wide basis for food – even that produced from American soils.  Lester Brown has summed it up this way:  “Food is the new oil.  Land is the new gold.”

But surely no one is actually hungry in the U.S., right?

So in spite of all these statistics, it is hard to imagine that in a country where most major health problems are now related to obesity, people could actually have difficulty getting enough food. But of course our country has been experiencing a steady growth in income inequality.  (See some chilling statistics from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)  For technical reasons, the word “hunger” is not used.  Instead, levels of  food security are measured.  The USDA has four categories, two of which indicate problems called food insecurity.

Low food security: reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.  (For example, if you were unable to eat meat more than once or twice a week, and could not afford to eat meals out, but were able to eat a sufficient diet so that you did not actually experience loss of weight or skipped meals.)

Very low food security: Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake. (For example, food sometimes ran out and you had to skip meals or lost weight because of inadequate meals.)

The graph at right shows that 15% of Americans now experience some form of food insecurity – and nearly 5% say they have to miss meals sometimes.

Now imagine the effect of shortage-induced price rises.

So what are we going to do about it?

One thing is to support our institutions that help people get needed food.  The greatest of these is Food Gatherers.  They serve as a food pantry to get commodities to families in need and do food rescues.  But so often people who depend on food pantries for a substantial part of their diet find themselves eating canned food.  Food Gatherers has launched on an effort to see that fresh healthful food is supplied as well.  Another superb organization is Growing Hope.  They combine education and opportunity to grow your own food with a farmers’ market where several different methods of obtaining food through social programs allows people to have fresh food.   These two organizations keep people from being hungry while also supporting the fresh local food ethic that is what this movement is all about.

Another thing is to support our local farmers.  That’ll be in the next post on this subject.

UPDATE:  Michael Pollan’s tweets served up a report from the Heinrich Böll Foundation on the intersection between climate, politics and hunger.  “The Wheel of Life suggests these complex interactions help explain why, even though economic growth indicators have risen in many countries over the last decade, hunger rates have increased too, especially within the last several years.”  Here is a direct link for a download of the report:  The Wheel of Life: Food, Climate, Human Rights, and the Economy.

Local Food and Good Eating in a Season of Plenty II

Ann Arbor Farmers’ Market, October 2012

Good news: the local food movement in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County has built success on success over the last few years.  It really is a social movement in the sense that it represents a conscious change in the way we view food production and consumption, and is the result of individual and group actions by many people and different groups and institutions.

What is the motivation behind the movement?  Actually, there are several.

Healthful food 

The understanding that our food was being produced using too many toxic materials (especially pesticides) has been growing over decades and a demand for organic food is now well established.  There is a national organic certification system that has a mixed effect (not a subject for this post) but it is simple wisdom to “know your farmer, know your food” in order to be confident of how the food was produced.

Beyond the issue of toxics, the nutritive value of food is dependent both on how it is grown and how processed.  We now know that grass-fed beef is more healthful because of the fatty acid content, and fresh vegetables contain more nutrients than those that have been stored. And of course, the types of food consumed have a profound effect on health.  As Michael Pollan has thoroughly discussed in his book In Defense of Food, the Western diet is making us sick.  He has warned us against eating food that “your grandmother wouldn’t recognize” and boiled down the lesson to his now celebrated basic rule:  “Eat food.  Not too much. Mostly plants.“   (“Food” here means recognizable food, not industrial synthetic “product”.  Twinkie, I’m looking at you.)  Locally grown real food is a direct way to achieve this goal.  This is the driver behind the “Farm to School” effort. The idea is to train children to appreciate fresh, real food, and to make it available to them through school food programs.

Tasty food

Slow Food, an international organization, has been an important impetus behind the local food movement.  Our local chapter, Slow Food Huron Valley, has provided a real brain trust and organizational center for the movement.  As their website says, “We inspire a transformation in food policy, production practices and market forces so that they ensure equity, sustainability and pleasure in the food we eat.”  Note that last – the slow food movement is not just about the environment or helping small farmers, it is about the taste.  Part of the local food movement has been an epicurean interest in artisanal foods – food made by hand, locally.

Local economy

The local food impetus ties in to a larger quest for local economic vitality. The BALLE organization (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) exemplifies the effort to encourage  “human-scale, interconnected local economies that function in harmony with local ecosystems to meet the basic needs of all people, support just and democratic societies, and foster joyful community life”.  This relates in turn to the concept of localization, the notion of creating self-reliant local communities.  This concept is the core basis of this blog.  For a comprehensive review of the concepts of localization, see the book The Localization Reader. This set of readings is used for a seminar on localization taught at the University of Michigan by Raymond De Young and Thomas Princen, who are the editors of the book.  The articles contained within have little to do with food and much to do with energy and philosophies of social organization.  Some of them are classics and some newly written by the editors.

Encouraging development of  the local food system is the focus of FSEP  (Food System Economic Partnership), which is housed in Washtenaw County but has members (counties) throughout the SE Michigan region.  FSEP has supported small food business development through education and expert assistance and is conducting a Beginning Farmer program through its Tilian Farm Incubator Program.

Grand Rapids is ahead of our region in using the food system for business development, with their Downtown Market project. (Read local blogger Mark Maynard’s take on this.)  Still, though we do not have an indoor facility, we do have a year-round Ann Arbor Farmers’ Market  with a venerable history (download pdf of history,  thanks to The Arbor Market) and a growing list of other farmers’ markets.

Washtenaw Food Hub, open for business

A really exciting recent development, the Washtenaw Food Hub, is now emerging as a reality.  It recently received a grant from the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for continued development of the former Braun farm (4175 Whitmore Lake Road) into a center for commerce, education, food storage, food preparation and other system-building activities.

Ethical and environmental considerations

Making food choices has increasingly become, for some of us at least, a battle of conscience.  Our industrial food system has been very efficient at delivering relatively inexpensive food, but the cost isn’t just to our waistlines.  It is to the global environment and to other animal species.

As Michael Pollan outlined so well in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, our industrial food system rests heavily on the cultivation of corn (maize).  It is used in many industrial food products as a sweetener and source of chemicals, but most of all it is used to feed animals.  Zea mays is a very remarkable species.  It can be remarkably productive, partly because it is a C4 plant.  Many other grains, like wheat and millet, are C3 plants, which means that they have a defect in their photosynthetic mechanism which causes them to be very inefficient under conditions of high temperatures and water stress.  Maize loves those hot Iowa summers (with enough water).  But its cultivation requires high inputs of fossil fuels for high production.  So as we consume its products, we are also exacerbating our planet’s energy budget problem.

Some ethical considerations about food. Click for larger view.

Cattle are fed maize for rapid weight gain, though they are not adapted to be grain eaters.  This often happens in crowded feedlots where inhumane events are well known.   The animals are under stress during this time and at slaughter.  Chickens are also often caged under stressful conditions.  (California was the first state in the nation to pass a law requiring changes in chicken cage sizes.)  You don’t really want to hear about pigs.  All of these thoughts can affect your appetite.  (There are others; I discussed this in a post on a different blog some time ago.)

Thus, eating local food, in particular locally raised meat, eggs, and dairy, probably not only gives you access to better food but often to food from humanely treated animals.  Of course, the more vegetables (local of course) that you eat instead of these animal products, the more you win on both ethical and health grounds.

Community food security

And finally, the most important reason of all.  Food security means that people have enough to eat. We’ll discuss that at more length in the next post.

Note: Posts on this subject are listed on the Local Food Page.

Local Food and Good Eating in a Season of Plenty

Ann Arbor Farmers’ Market, October 17, 2012

The Thanksgiving holiday is a good time to step back and reflect on our amazing good fortune to live now, here (Washtenaw County, Michigan).  We are truly living in a time of plenty.  And we are living in a region that produces a lot of food, good local food.  It didn’t have to be that way, and for so many people at so many times it hasn’t been. It is good to be mindful as well as thankful.

The holiday that has been debased as merely “Turkey Day” and worse,  Early Black Friday, may seem trite to us at the moment, when obesity is considered the nation’s major health problem and ready-to-eat food (at least in some palatable form) is available at every convenience store and strip mall.  But we should remember, at this time and always, that we are living in a privileged moment of history and in an exceptionally endowed food environment.  Don’t forget that the first “Thanksgiving” was a celebration of escape from hunger.  The Pilgrims who set off for the new world in the Mayflower in 1620 numbered 102.  In autumn of 1621, the 53 survivors celebrated the harvest.

As a country, we have experienced many episodes of mass hunger, despite having the wildlife and natural resources of an entire continent to exploit.  Most recently, the Great Depression was characterized by hunger marches and bread lines.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Inaugural Address (1937) is worth rereading.  (You’ll find some startling parallels to today, at least if you are of a liberal viewpoint. )

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

My mother was a teenager during the Depression, a member of a family with 9 children.  She experienced hunger – not starvation, but the experience of never having quite enough and never being sure about future meals.  To the end of her life, she couldn’t bear to see food wasted.  Then there was World War II, with food rationing.  Finally, in the postwar period, Americans were able to have enough to eat.  But food was expensive. Michael Pollan, in his revolutionary treatise The Omnivore’s Dilemma, tells the story of how political pressures due to food prices caused a change in farm policy.  In 1973, there were supermarket protests after the cost of grain soared (we had shipped our stores to Russia, where there was a famine going on).  President Nixon instructed his Agricultural Secretary, Earl Butz, to make food cheap.  He did – and launched the American industrial food era by ensuring an endless supply of cheap corn.

I well remember those times.  I was a graduate student in Madison, Wisconsin, and we coped with the high price of food by growing our own vegetables, joining a co-op (it sold only bulk food), learning to eat mostly vegetarian food, and making as much as possible by hand and at home.  The price of a pound of hamburger doubled in a matter of months (it was like watching the stock market).  I read Diet for a Small Planet from cover to cover.  But then – things got easier.  Food became all too accessible. Prepared food of all kinds and restaurant meals became cheaper and there were fast-food restaurants on every corner.  As a nation, we relaxed and starting eating too much so that diet-related disease has become a crisis (children are now diagnosed with Type II diabetes, unheard of earlier).

Our relationship to food is complex.  It is one of our chief sources of pleasure.  It is something that we require for life.  It can be an addiction, a morbid affliction.  It has profound effects on health and longevity, the exact mechanisms for which keep changing, at least in the information we are provided. It is a chief means of celebration.  It is an ethical dilemma.  It can affect the generations to come (malnourished mothers have children who never grow as big). It is a social bond. Scientists have even suggested that cooking it is how we became human (more calories with less work, feeds big brains).  And of course, it is a business.  So it is difficult to come to just the right place with the subject, yet many of us became aware that something was wrong.

In this last decade there has been a rebirth of something worthy of being called a Food Movement.  The previous move toward homemade food and what would become known as organic food in the 1970s never really went away, but it was a narrowly observed cultural phenomenon until recently.  Now, with the influence of works such as Pollan’s book,  there is a new emphasis on locally produced food and away from the industrial food model. I was fortunate in picking up on this in the early days in Ann Arbor.  Here is the article I published in the Ann Arbor Observer.

(continued with next post)

Regional Transit in Ann Arbor and Beyond: A Matter of Governance II

David Nacht at a March 2012 AATA Board meeting

A long road to countywide transit comes to an abrupt end.  Why?

Just as governance has been a critical issue for the proposed Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (discussed in our previous post), it has also been a key factor in the development of a Washtenaw County regional (county-wide) authority.  Under the leadership of David Nacht, the previous Chair of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, AATA has been working toward this goal since the board took a straw vote in May 2008 to become a regional authority.  We described some of those early efforts in our December 2009 post, AATA’s Uncertain Future.  Nacht led the AATA to consider several models of governance for a regional authority,  including one in which the City of Ann Arbor (supported by its perpetual transit millage) would remain separate, but cooperating, with the rest of the county, while the “out-county” would enact its own millage for the regional service.  This “donut hole” model was set aside for the “layer cake” model in which the City of Ann Arbor’s millage forms the foundation for the entire regional system, with just a little assist from the rest of the county’s municipalities via a new millage.  The many twists and turns in the evolution of this proposed system have been discussed in posts on our Transportation Page.

There is an enduring conflict in our country between two firmly held concepts.  One is the principle that a local community should be able to determine its own fate (self-determination).  The other is the ideal of a regional governance for the common good across the region.   As we described in an earlier post, Is Regionalism Really a Good Thing?,  this inherent conflict is playing out right here in Washtenaw County.  Michigan has a stubbornly vital tradition of local rule.  In fact, it’s in our state constitution. The township system of government makes every issue intensely local, with citizens of each township deciding on the level of services and taxation they prefer, while viewing the efforts of other governments (especially, in this county, Ann Arbor) to dictate their activities with suspicion and mistrust.  Yet putting a regional authority into place requires, roughly paraphrasing Pittsfield Township Mandy Grewal, that “we all join hands and jump”.  The makers of the Washtenaw County regional authority sought to address this conflict by using a blended system of representation.  As described in a presentation by Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) director Terri Blackmore,  a combination of population (less-populated townships were combined into larger districts) and financial contribution were taken into account to award seats at the table. (Blackmore was strongly instrumental in developing this scheme.)

District map as presented in December 2011

The thinly populated western townships, along with the city of Chelsea and village of Manchester, were awarded just one seat on a board of 15.  Pittsfield Township, with a large partly urbanized population, got one full seat.  The tiny population of the city of Ypsilanti earned itself a full seat by voting in a charter millage (about 1 mill) to pay for its service contract (POSA) with AATA.  And Ann Arbor, with its fat perpetual millage (now almost 2 mills, down from 2.5 mills), got just under a majority of seats (7 of 15), despite having only about a third of the county’s population.

Contrast this with the system proposed for the SE Michigan RTA in which each participating county was tentatively given the same number of seats.  As we discussed in the previous post, awarding seats on the basis of  either population or financial contribution has a potential effect of sowing mistrust and doubt.  Smaller communities may fear domination by the larger ones, and larger contributors may fear the redistributive effect.  Yet awarding seats on the basis of monetary share highlights any perceived inequities in the way those funds are distributed.  While the regional approach is presented as cost sharing, it is also inevitably cost shifting.  When differential weight is given to monetary contribution, the question then becomes, “Am I getting MY money’s worth?”.

Nevertheless, AATA assembled a “u196″ (unincorporated 196) board along those lines.  It has been meeting since December 2011.  Many of the members are actually township officials, and there seemed to be a fair amount of enthusiasm and support for the idea.  They were presented with what appeared to be a carefully thought-out process. AATA staff endured many sessions before the Ann Arbor City Council and the Board of Commissioners, and finally got their Articles of Incorporation approved.  They requested that the County file the AOI, which was on October 3, 2012.  (See the report by the Ann Arbor Chronicle explaining that moment) Letters were sent to all affected jurisdictions in early October that specified how each one could opt out – or choose to stay in.  This should have launched a 30-day window for opting out, but because of some confusion about the legal requirements (summarized by the Ann Arbor Chronicle), Washtenaw County administration sent out a second set of letters, so that the opt-out window was “reset” to December 10.

But even before that final moment, there were indications of trouble with a universal buy-in.  Six townships simply refused to participate even at the most preliminary stage.  Then, as early as September, AATA board members began referring to the possibility that some communities might opt out and then opt back in later.  Comments were made indicating that opted-out communities might be able to retain a seat at the table for the interim, in hopes that they would decide to opt back in.  This possibility and some of the legal tangles involved were reviewed by the Ann Arbor Chronicle.  According to that account and to comments made by staff on venues such as WEMU radio programs, opted-out communities might come back in up until the (presumably) May millage vote.

At the October 2, 2012 meeting where the AATA board voted to submit the AOI, the new chair of the board Charles Griffiths gave voice to that approach, as quoted by the Ann Arbor Chronicle:

Griffith addressed the possibility of opt outs, by saying that everyone knew that some jurisdictions will not feel ready at this time to join in this effort – but that’s okay, he said. What’s important is that we give it our best shot to provide an opportunity to everyone. He said the AATA had come up with the best that it could to meet the needs that had been identified and expressed through communities across the county. “If, for whatever reason, we didn’t get that right, we can keep working at it,” he said. He characterized this step as the beginning of the journey, not the end. He hoped that as many jurisdictions would cooperate as possible.

The AATA board and administration must have been surprised, however, at the totality of the reaction.  Municipalities began voting to opt out almost on receipt of the letter (see the post, Washtenaw County Transit: More Outs than Ins, for more details.)  By the end of October, every township, with the exception of Ypsilanti Township, had opted out, as had many villages and cities.  Among cities and villages, only the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline remained.  (Saline passed a resolution affirming its intention of joining the authority.)  The Village of Dexter postponed its decision.

Remaining (green) and opted-out (red screen) communities in Washtenaw County as of October 30, 2012. Dexter Village had not voted.

What Happened?

So why did most Washtenaw County communities opt out after sending representatives to nearly a year’s worth of meetings, many of whom were very encouraging about the process and even allowed their images to be used in promoting it?  One reason is that they simply didn’t have much to gain by joining.

Summary map for Washtenaw Ride services as of September 2012 (click for larger version)

As seen in this map, most townships were offered very limited services.  (Poor Bridgewater counted for so little that is covered up, as is most of Saline Township.) They were offered vanpools (AATA has already moved to take over this service from a previous operator) and enhanced service from WAVE (a contractor; the green lines).  The red lines are express buses that have limited stops and times and are mostly designed for 9-5 commuters into Ann Arbor.  The larger villages and cities have a local circulator (blue).  Otherwise, most bus services and even the demand services like Dial-a-Ride are limited to the urban area.

As we have outlined earlier, most townships have a very low operating millage rate, by design.  The millage for the countywide authority has been forecast to be 0.58 mills, though that was subject to revision depending on how many units opted out.  To many Ann Arbor residents, that might not seem too consequential as a standalone amount, as we have many millages for specialized services that have received a popular vote.  But to understand county politics, you must understand how large a commitment that seems to many township residents.  If they are going to tax their residents even that much, they must receive visible services for that money.

Pittsfield Township trustees were very clear in their discussion prior to opting out, as reported by AnnArbor.com.

The township currently levies a 0.5 mill tax on residents for parks and recreation activities, Grewal said, and prides itself on its low taxes.

Israel stated that he did not believe Pittsfield Township’s participation in the new transportation authority guaranteed the expansion of transit options in the township.

The township’s trustees also noted another feature of the plan: that their township’s taxes would be paying for other services elsewhere.

Israel noted AATA’s proposed express route to Canton Township in its five-year service plan – and said he didn’t think Pittsfield Township voters should be paying out for that kind of service.

On the other hand, Ypsilanti Township, the sole township to stay in the regional authority, will receive expanded bus services and “demand” (Dial-a-Ride) service.  (Note the dashed red outline on the map.)  Its supervisor, Karen Lovejoy Roe, remarked in a comment on AnnArbor.com’s earlier coverage of the Pittsfield decision that the availability of services for seniors and enhanced ability for workers to get to jobs were important reasons for the township to ask its voters to take on the additional millage.

Mixed Messages

One of the reasons this venture hasn’t quite come together is that there are several different, sometimes competing, messages about why we need county-wide transit.  Looked at from a township perspective, they don’t compute.

Connectivity:  “Our life does not end at city borders.  We should recognize that we are a greater community.”  This is a nice sentiment but it is hard to attach dollar value to it.  Also, the bus routes provided are not designed for casual travel to other communities, but only for commuting.

Environment: The argument is often made that mass transit will reduce air pollution and global warming.  But though this is likely true (and we certainly hope so), there have been some contrary comments about how this really pencils out.  Those making the argument for environmental benefit often use the “hand-waving” method, rather than citing data studies.  In any case, clearly a substantial ridership is needed for an individual transit vehicle to make a difference; there must be a payback ratio, and this is not discussed much.  Certainly no dollar value to local communities is easily attached.

Need:  It’s hard to argue with this one, since it is a primary reason to support mass transit.  People who have poor access to personal transportation or are low income need to be able to get to work and other places.  But the countywide plan really only addresses this for the urban area (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti areas).  As someone from Lyndon Township told me, in order to get to Ann Arbor, they’d have to take WAVE to Chelsea, then take the express bus, and then they wouldn’t be able to get home again later (unless at strictly commuter times), and it would be expensive.

Regional Business Development: This is, in my opinion, one of the primary drivers behind the plan.  Notice all those express buses going out of the county to areas that are not paying in?  But it would mostly benefit businesses located in the greater Ann Arbor area, and of course the University of Michigan.

And of course, though most of the discussion is about bus services, the county-wide authority is also seeking money to support expensive rail and connector services that will benefit only a very limited population, and centered on Ann Arbor.  The townships are rightly suspicious.  The idea of paying into a regional pool for something that doesn’t benefit them (or their residents) directly doesn’t match their idea of governance.  As we noted some time ago, there has been a suspicion among township residents that this entire scheme was a way to get their money for the benefit of Ann Arbor.

Partners for Transit, a rather informally organized advocacy group for regional transit (it appears to be supported by the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, Conan Smith’s shop), has been making the case that really, the massive opt-out is not a concern because the greatest population of the county will be served.  Further, this is where the need is.

Partners for Transit cartogram representing communities’ areas as a function of population

But though this observation is true enough, it ignores the entire question of governance.  An authority limited to these urban communities abandons the idea of “county-wide” transit (and many of the rationales on which it was based) and it will inevitably mean that Ann Arbor is simply subsidizing the two Ypsilanti communities.  (The purchase of service agreements shown for connecting townships are not necessarily in place or defined.)  Recall that the plan is for Ann Arbor to continue paying 2+ mills, plus the new one, Ypsilanti City to continue  its approximately 1 mill, plus the new one, and then Ypsilanti Township would pay only the new millage.  It also means that a higher millage (in addition to the existing Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city millages) would be necessary to achieve that level of service.  To get some sense of proportional contribution, see our earlier post in which even with the entire county participating, we would be paying approximately 75% of the cost.

If we wish to subsidize Ypsilanti, surely there is a more efficient way to do it rather than to create a whole new authority with expanded powers but a territory hardly larger than is served under our present system.  And there will still be an issue of governance.  Would we give the two Ypsilanti communities seats on our joint transit board, even though we are subsidizing their service?  They would probably expect that.  And how would we allocate them?  The same options apply as mentioned earlier: a choice between unitary representation, population-based, or monetary contribution.  Each of these has potential political obstacles. If we include the townships that wish to have only a service contract (in which they would pay only the cost allocated to their own service), an even more unequal form of governance might be possible.

Partners for Transit is also stating that Ann Arbor would have a higher level of service, as well.  But we could achieve that ourselves, simply by using our existing millage for Ann Arbor rather than to support the many regional and commuter-oriented additions that the AATA board has introduced.  Or we could pass an additional millage for our own use.

Regrouping

With all this before them, a good-sized fraction of the Ann Arbor City Council is now preparing to regroup.  Tonight (November 8, 2012) has a new agenda item.  The resolution to opt out from the Act 196 authority also calls for abrogating the 4-party agreement.  (A lengthy discussion and analysis is in this from the Ann Arbor Chronicle.)  It contains this language in explanation (click on the text for a larger view):

UPDATE: The Ann Arbor City Council voted 10-0 to withdraw from the Act 196 authority and the 4-party agreement (November 8, 2012).    Here are links to news accounts:  AnnArbor.com        Ann Arbor Chronicle

Michael Ford sent out a news release acknowledging the loss and pointing to future action.   He pledged to concentrate on the urban core but also said “Efforts to extend the benefits of transit to a greater number of Washtenaw County residents will continue”.  AATA Press Release-New Transit Authority Update

Regional Transit in Ann Arbor and Beyond: A Matter of Governance

Some public services are best performed on a strictly local basis; those aimed primarily at privately owned property, for example.  But others lend themselves best to a broad regional approach, and transportation is surely one of them.  A transportation network needs central planning.  Imagine the Interstate Highway system administered by counties.  Public transit systems logically should be regional in nature, especially in this era where people expect to work at a distance from where they live.  But two attempts in southeast Michigan to institute regional transit have run up against obstacles inherent in Michigan political organization.  The two wannabe regional transit authorities are the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and the Washtenaw Ride.   Each of these must resolve a matter of governance in order to launch successfully.

Regional transit hopefuls (L to R), Megan Owens of Transportation Riders United, Jesse Bernstein of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and Conan Smith of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, August 2012

Governance is a word that has come into vogue lately.  It alludes to the manner in which government conducts its business and especially the way it interacts with its citizens.  Some of the important elements in this interaction are representation, taxation, and power.   People generally want to believe that they are fairly represented at the decision-making level.  If the body collects taxes, are they proportionate to the function of the governing body?  And does this body exert a level of power over daily lives that is appropriate to its function, not dictatorial or burdensome?

The proposed Detroit metro area RTA has a very specific prescription for how representation will be determined.  As we reported, Governor Snyder proposed a major revamp of Michigan’s transportation laws and system nearly a year ago.  A summary of the bills that emerged to implement this ambitious plan is available in our post, Those State Transportation Bills and the Regional Transit Authority.  Most of the bills have not moved very far.  The bills that would implement the RTA are “tie-barred”, meaning that the principal bill, Senate Bill 909/House Bill 5309, must pass before the others in the package can be implemented.  The best explanation of this package of bills is contained in an analysis from the excellent Senate Fiscal Agency.  SB 909 has been amended  and a substitute (S-3) has been reported out of the Senate Transportation Committee, which I understand to mean that it may be taken up by the Senate as soon as it is placed on an agenda.  The analysis has a good deal to say about governance, specifically about representation. There is apparently some rule that legislation cannot name specific municipalities, thus they have to be described by population and other indirect means. The legislation calls for two members appointed from each of the four counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne, and Washtenaw), plus one appointed by the Mayor of Detroit. This has proved to be an issue that has apparently been at least one reason for the slow progress of the legislation.  Detroit representatives have complained that they should be entitled to more than one seat.  But one of the Wayne County seats is allocated to Detroit as well.  This has led to Wayne County’s complaint that they are entitled to two full seats and the suggestion that Washtenaw County should give up one of its seats. Conan Smith, who as one of his hats has been negotiating on behalf of Washtenaw County at both the state and regional levels, has apparently (according to the Ann Arbor Chronicle) offered to give up one of Washtenaw’s seats in order to seal the deal.  (Smith is very invested in the RTA concept, presumably in part because of his position at the metropolitan Detroit Michigan Alliance of Suburbs;  the MSA is hiring staff to promote the concept.)

Rounded-down figures for population of the 5 RTA communities

Note that the representation is based on a simple formula of equal representation for each geographical unit, except for the single appointee from the city of Detroit.  The populations of the different geographical units are quite different.  If the basis of the appointments was on an equal representation for each person (one man, one vote concept), the result would be very different.  This first table shows the lower figure of population of each unit from the legislation.  Note that the figure for Wayne County must include the population of the City of Detroit, since it is within that county.

Seats apportioned on the basis of percent population, if current 9 members were retained

If we subtract the population of Detroit from Wayne County, it still holds its own as one of the highest populations among the five communities to be represented in the RTA.  If we then apportion the number of seats based on percentage of the total population, Detroit and Washtenaw would both have only one, while the biggest two counties would have three. The problem with such a solution is that these are all sovereign entities, each with local constituencies and concerns.  Pride is a factor, especially for Detroit. But self-preservation also makes joining an alliance as a weaker member unsavory.  The possibility exists that the more powerful (in terms of votes) communities could force policies or requirements down the throats of the weaker ones.

Another way to apportion seats could be by relative monetary contribution.  But since this is to be funded by vehicle registration fees, it could be a shifting number over time, and it could also be a measure of the relative affluence of each community, which would presumably disadvantage Detroit, again unpalatable from a political viewpoint.  Yet on the other hand, one suspicion that participants in a regional venture have is that this is not a cost-sharing opportunity, but rather a cost-shifting move.  In other words, that the suburban counties (including Washtenaw) might be picking up the tab for Detroit.  This has its own political calculus. Emphasizing the difference in monetary contribution could also lead to heavy-handedness on the part of the larger contributors, and to squabbles over what the exact proportions are, or other factors.  The lesser contributors might also fear that their needs would be slighted in favor of the more powerful members’ priorities.

The rationale for passage of the bill package and establishment of the RTA shifts depending on whose eyes you are looking through.  To Transportation Riders United, it is a simple question of needing adequate bus transit service within the greater Detroit area.  Bus transit in the Metro area has a sad confused history, as recorded in this detailed chronology.  Two different bus systems, Detroit Department of Transportation (City of Detroit) and SMART (regional transit authority which serves Oakland, Macomb and Wayne Counties) do not interconnect adequately and leave many functional gaps in transit coverage. This is frustrating to everyone from riders to civic leaders to economic development planners.  We explained in our earlier post that improving this coordination is apparently one motivation for the new RTA.  Dennis Schornack, the Governor’s spokesman, intimated at one meeting that his intention (not expressed in these words) was basically to smack the two authorities alongside the head and make them behave.

Proposed BRT routes into Detroit. Graphic by Dave Askins of the Ann Arbor Chronicle, used with permission. Pointer is Detroit Metro Airport.

But this wasn’t what the Governor stressed when he made his presentation.  Instead, he stressed the importance of rapid efficient transit within the metro area, including to Detroit Metro Airport.  As explained in various venues, this would be in the form of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes.  The famous example of this is Cleveland’s Euclid corridor line.  BRT routes in the purest form are segregated lanes with high-tech long buses, somewhat like a small train.  They are necessarily express routes, especially over a long route like those being proposed here, so they don’t stop at every corner.  The purpose is to enable commuters and business interests to travel quickly to the economic center in Detroit.  This is favored by economic development planners.

In spite of these two bus-related types of motivations, the RTA legislation has languished in the legislature.  Suddenly in September, the House Transportation Committee held a public hearing on the bills.  (No action was scheduled, just the hearing.)  Many business and civic leaders turned up to testify, along with a crowd of enthusiastic transit supporters.  But in watching it, one suddenly realized that the subject for many of them was not buses, even BRT.  The subject was light rail.  A group of investors has been pushing a light rail line down Woodward Avenue, called M-1.  It is 3.4 miles in length and it could be argued that it is less about transit than about development and economic revitalization.   But the investors have run up against resistance from the Federal government when seeking grant funds to help finance it.  It turns out that US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been pressing local leaders to achieve a regional transit authority before Federal funds will be made available.  From this Detroit News story,

LaHood has said federal officials are prepared to offer $25 million for a proposed light rail project on Woodward “if the community can get its act together.” On Monday, he wouldn’t specify the amount, but noted one of the hurdles is the creation of the regional authority to coordinate mass transit.

The Michigan Chronicle lays out some even more specific points about the pressure being put on legislators:

We’re willing to put on the table millions of dollars if this community can get its act together,” LaHood said of the Metro Detroit region… I met with the speaker of the house and senate majority leader and they told me that they support the idea of a regional transportation system and that legislation.

The story goes on to quote Governor Snyder in saying that he hopes that the Legislature will address the matter in the lame-duck session.  That makes sense from a strategic viewpoint because it is a time that legislators can take action with relatively little fear of retribution from constituents.  [I'm sure that Conan Smith is hoping it will be passed as immediate implementation (otherwise it might not take effect until next year).  One provision is that the Chair of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners appoints the two Washtenaw County members of the RTA board, and his term as Chair expires on December 31, 2012.]

There are many fine details to this legislation that deserve attention, including the question about the true priority for attention and funding.  Is it the bus system?  The BRT? The M-1 rail?  The voters of the four counties will still have to approve the vehicle fees, and the description of what services are being provided will be critical.  The populations of the three counties outside Detroit may not be persuaded by the M-1 priority, for example.  New taxes usually hold out a promise for delivery of services.  Will that be convincing across the region?

And ultimately, the message to the voters will have to deal with the governance question successfully.  Voters from each municipal unit will have to be convinced that they are signing on to a system which represents them and for which they receive at least some direct benefit.  Of course, since Washtenaw County has such a small proportion of voters, our vote may not matter much.

UPDATE:  As reported by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners acted to withdraw support of the RTA on November 7, 2012.  It is not clear what effect that action will have on the ultimate fate of the initiative.

SECOND UPDATE: The Detroit News reports today (November 27, 2012) that the RTA legislation is having a rough go in the state legislature.  Ironically, much of the story focuses on the possible loss of funds for M-1.

The story mentions the actions earlier this month withdrawing BOC endorsement of the idea:

The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution this month saying the county wants to manage its own transportation systems and funds and let voters decide whether to join the authority. Ann Arbor and several townships opted against forming a countywide bus system.

There are numerous issues, including funding and condemnation powers the new authority would have.

The story quotes Mark Ouimet, who lost his re-election bid this year when Gretchen Driskell was elected instead.  Ouimet was a major supporter of the RTA concept.

THIRD UPDATE:  News services report that the RTA passed the State Senate this afternoon (November 27), with amendments.  Washtenaw County is still included in the region.   SB 0909 passed 22-16.  SB 0911 passed 22-15.  SB 0912 passed 23-15. SB 0967 passed  23-15.      SB 0445 passed 23-15.

FOURTH UPDATE: Most measures have now (December 9, 2012) passed the House and are anticipated to be signed by the Governor. (SB 912 and SB 0967 are still pending.)

For further updates on this subject, see The SE Michigan Regional Transit Authority in Progress.