Economic Development And Zoning Report

First off, I believe the other commissioners are as concerned as I am, about job opportunities and economic health in the region.  No one should doubt the intent of a commissioner who speaks out for the expansion of opportunities to our local job providers.

We see things a little differently however, in the manner of how those opportunities are created.  While the currently preferred method includes a number of (what are referred to as) “tools,” my personal preference is creating the overall environment that is friendly to business.

Examples of the ‘tools’ used now:

• Renaissance zones
• Specific credits for certain industries
• Job creation grants
• Partial or full abatement of taxes
• Permissions for exemptions and variances of zoning
• Brownfield TIF financing
• Loans to business by government

But some of these things require the sacrifice of your taxes.  Your money taken from you in user fees, sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

On March 16th, as the Grand Traverse County Commissioners voted to offer an EDC loan of $150,000 to a business start up in Elk Rapids, (Antrim County) our treasurer Bill Rokos sat quietly at a table in the back of the room, signing 1400 notices of delinquency that were to be sent out to homeowners in our county.  As we were using TAXPAYER money to play LOAN MANAGER, people are at risk of losing their homes for failure to fund our “bank.”

The argument can be made that the EDC money came from somewhere else (the state) and it has been working for Grand Traverse County for years, but  the reality for those who have lost their jobs, and cannot simply exist without substantial payments for the rent to live in the county, is that the philanthropic nature of commissioners, or committees, serve them not at all.

The Parks program for example, loses money yearly on its pool.  It loses enough money in fact, to pay dozens of tax bills.  The folks who find themselves facing a badge and eviction from the family home must surely appreciate the fact we have a swimming program.

Wouldn’t you?

However, that is merely a small part of the problem.

The economic health of the community has a number of factors beyond merely spending by county government.

Overly strict zoning and restrictive rules cause undue expense for business owners who wish to operate in some areas.  In fact for some folks, its not worth the time to attempt to start a business up because of red tape, variances needed, and the particular personalities that occupy some city and townships that lead to certain businesses being favored over others.

Often the measures are not meant to be particularly harmful, and only used in the hopes of creating a desirable place to live.  However, other efforts are outright immoral.

And if not the efforts themselves, the way in which those who would do planning would have the rules enforced. I am willing to offer an example  ..or two

As a member of the county planning commission, I get to review pending zoning changes from the different townships.  March 15th, we reviewed a couple from East Bay Township.  Two of them resulted in a nearly similar question/answer response.

First, the sign ordinance.  Standard language clean up, but a question about political signs and the sizes they are limited to got a “we pretty much ignore violations as much as possible for the political” answer from the EBT planner.  In other words, we are updating the rules, but we don’t plan on enforcement of those parts.

Then there was a much more controversial zoning item.  The proposed marijuana ordinance for East Bay township comes with an obvious sense of in-your-face to the 2008 measure that approved medical marijuana for qualified patients who suffer from various maladies, including Cancer, MS, and AIDS to name a few of the most obvious.

Disagreement with the MICHIGAN LAW now on the books would be enough to subvert through a carefully crafted ordinance that leaves no options open for self caregivers but to move to a friendlier city or township.  The limitation to industrial space by the new rules combined with the 1000′ radius of dwellings eliminates the possibility of any development of caregiver growing operations in East Bay TWP.  The image below can be blown up by clicking on it.  It shows the current dwelling effect on industrial zoned properties.

Note the zoned areas surrounding the industrial areas that have no dwellings yet.  Nearly ALL of the industrial space would be effectively off limits to the ‘objectionable’ practice of cultivation of medical marijuana.

The planner offers the ordinance to the EBT in this way:

This amendment would regulate primary caregiver facilities as a use permitted by right only in the Industrial District and subject to location and operational standards which are outlined in a new Section 232 in General Provisions. Like other uses permitted by right in the Industrial District, these facilities would be reviewed and approved administratively under Section 820, 6, b. This procedure does not require public hearing in contrast to other site plan procedures in the Township. This factor will help to assure compliance with the confidentiality requirements of the MMMA.

This language will require that all medical marihuana in the facility to be kept in a secured and locked facility and not be kept outdoors. It also requires a 24-hour monitored security system and it restricts access to the facility to one primary caregiver. More importantly, these standards prohibit the dispensing or use of medical marihuana at the facility. Caregivers must deliver the marihuana to their qualified patients. Finally, these standards establish isolation distances of 1,000 feet from such sensitive uses as schools, homes and parks.

As a member on the planning board, I asked the planner if he worked with any caregivers in developing the ordinance.  He said “no.”  I then asked the planner what happens to those who might already be growing within EBT for MM use.  “if they close up their shades, and don’t have traffic they wont have a problem” was the response.

Which opens the door to selective enforcement.  Capricious and arbitrary enforcement, as a tool made available by bad law.  As a tool to keep out undesirables? Perhaps.

Much like the response when asked about political signs, the intent of the township planner appears to be one of power.  When necessary, those rules can be enforced. Undoubtedly, the toolbox is full of this type of weaponry.

Perhaps that is what EBT residents would like.  However, it may cost the township when the lawsuits begin.  And they likely will.

In terms of economic development, why would anyone want to settle down in an area that has such corrupt possibilities?

If you are passing the rules ENFORCE THEM.  Do not pass them as if they do not matter, or will have little effect.  If the enforcement affects too many folks, then township officials find out eventually.

Is that asking too much?

I voted my approval on the sign ordinance because the attitude of the planner on enforcement is not relevant to whether it is legal.  If it is legal and accurate it should be approved at the planning board level.  I do not appreciate the idea of arbitrary enforcement, and would recommend not passing rules that are not meant to be uniformly applied.

I voted NO on the Marijuana ordinance. The attitude towards the MMMA (Michigan medical marijuana act) also has no bearing on the approval of the ordinance.  However, the territorial exclusion mechanics that openly violate equal protection for Michigan citizens (who qualify as legal self caregivers under the law), could be easily challenged and have financial impact to East Bay township in my opinion.

The ordinances will likely be carried forward in the next EBT meeting.