THE LOCAL AREA WATCH

CALVIN'S SILENT MAJORITY

The weekend before last, Calvin alumnist and liberal activist Sally Steenland made a big stink along with several hundred other preensters affiliated with Calvin College over President Bush giving the commencement address to this year's crop of Calvin grads.  The exception I took to Ms. Steenland's protest was that she was soliciting funds to pay for a full-page newspaper ad that falsely attributed her and her colleagues' sentiments against Bush to Calvin College, when plainly the college's representatives thought otherwise by virtue of inviting Bush to speak.

A member of Calvin's faculty, Mark Wiliams, wrote to me to put figures to the truth that Ms. Steenland and her fellow protestors were not representative of the majority of Calvin's establishment.  Mr. Williams had the following to say:

"Your article dealt only with the letter that appeared in Friday's [May 20th] GR Press.  You may not be aware, however, that the letter that appeared in Saturday's [May 21st] Press, which was entirely a product of the current campus community, gives a somewhat misleading view of the scope of protest on-campus.

"Last night I took the trouble to check the names of the signatories closely.
There are 160 of them, which would indicate that a sizeable percentage of the
(ca. 330) faculty was opposed to the Bush visit.  However, 37 of those who
signed are emeriti (retired faculty) or staff and at least two are part-time
faculty.  A couple of names did not appear in the latest edition of the campus
directory, which may indicate that they were hired for the spring term, after
the campus directory was published; I have no idea what their status is. 

"The ad makes it clear that the signers are 'concerned faculty, staff and
emeriti of Calvin College,' so there was no intent to deceive on the part of
those who wrote and signed the letter.  However, emeriti and staff are unlikely
ever to teach a class of students.  Those who believe that approximately half
of the faculty at Calvin signed this letter are misinformed.  It may be
objected that many of the staff who signed the letter have faculty status, but
that does not mean that they teach; it means only that they may represent their
divisions (e.g., the library staff) as franchised members of the campus senate.
In fact, there is a joke at Calvin that motorists who use the campus roads as
a short-cut between Burton Street and Lake Drive sometimes manage to get
faculty status as they drive through.

"The only real conclusion that can be drawn from this letter is that Calvin is
far more diverse politically than most U.S. college and university campuses."

While it may dismay some, including conservative Calvin alumnists and supporters, that they are any liberal voices at all on the school's faculty, it is to Calvin College's great credit that there exists a genuinely broad spectrum of political opinion among its teachers and staff -- in stark contrast to most colleges and universities.  Sure, a week and a half ago a noisy ham-handed group did cause a tasteless fuss over the president's visit spouting off political bromides currently fashionable in academia, but they are not the voice of Calvin College.  They are only one voice and not a predominant one at that.

This is important to understand, because Mr. Williams has reported that some Calvin alumnists have announced decisions to withdraw financial support for the college because of the impression that the Steenland and "faculty" ads gave that their disgust with the president's visit was shared by the college's establishment.  The news is that Ms. Steenland and company speak for themselves, and they represent only a small part of the Calvin College community.

On the one hand, it is unfortunate that Calvin's preensters valued an untimely expression of political opinions over comity with the majority of Calvin's faculty, alumnists, and students who apolitically welcomed the president.  On the other, it is fortunate to have such an institution of higher learning where a genuine exchange of political beliefs remains healthy and vibrant.  That is an increasingly precious commodity among today's professoriate and deserves our support.

Thanks to Mark Williams for giving us the inside scoop so that we could get this important message out to you.

GUV JEN ALL WET

Governor Granholm issued a fiat last week restricting the distribution of the water that Nestle Waters North America is pumping from wells up north in Evart for its bottled water product called "Ice Mountain".  Guv Jen says water from Evart can only be sold within the Great Lakes basin.

Considering the size of these inland seas, you'd think their basin would cover a great expanse.  Not so.  The Great Lakes basin barely includes Michigan, the Ontario peninsula, and the lakeside fringes of surrounding states.  Most of Chicago, for example, lies outside the basin and so is a market banned by Guv Jen to Nestle's.

Granholm imposed the distribution ban upon Nestle's by the unprecedented maneuver of making it part of Nestle's permit to build on state property a transfer station for water pumped from Evart.  It appears that Guv Jen monkeywrenched Nestle's to get attention for her proposal for comprehensive regulation of water withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin.  In other words, the Guv's ban has no merit in its own right.

Nor should it.  The idea that Nestle's, or even all of the world's bottlers of water, could pump the Great Lakes dry is absurd.  They wouldn't even make a significant dent in the amount of water in the basin.  Whether or not Nestle's wells in Evart or Big Rapids (its primary facility in the state which is unaffected by Guv Jen's ban) have a negative impact on the local water table, I don't know, but I wonder how that would be any different than the local impact of a mine or logging operation or an industrial farm.

Imagine how impoverished a place Michigan would be if its government had banned the distribution of iron and copper, lumber and cherries, furniture and automobiles beyond the state line.  Michigan's waters are just another resource, and one that people outside of Michigan will pay a great deal of money to drink.  (Think about it, dear readers, a gallon of bottled water is more expensive than a gallon of gasoline -- even at today's record prices.  That makes us the Saudi Arabia of freshwater.)

Just as we don't allow the destruction of our forests to extract valuable timber from them, we don't have to allow harm to our watershed to let Nestle's bottle our water.  But Guv Jen is all wet when she bans distribution of a Michigan resource to most of its market.  That kind of thinking is a good way to make us poor while sitting atop riches.

PRICEY PARKING PROJECTED FOR AIRPORT

The Press reported on Friday that the projected cost for a new parking ramp at Gerald R. Ford International Airport has been revised to $120 million.  Consequently airport officials are thinking about nixing the ramp.  They should.  That's an incredible amount to spend for a parking ramp.  Not only is the new estimate double the old estimate of $60 million, the old estimate was way out of whack.

As public parking enthusiasts know, the rule-of-thumb for the cost of a parking ramp in our region is about $6,000 per space.  The airport ramp was designed to accommodate 4,800 cars, so the rough estimate comes out to $28.8 million.  I can't imagine more than thirty million bucks worth of bells and whistles that pushed the estimate to $60 million, let alone $120 million.  OK, they added sky bridges from the ramp to the terminal -- but at a price tag of $90 million!?

Besides, why do we need a parking ramp at the airport anyway?  The plan for the ramp has been around for a decade now.  In fact, it's been mothballed since 9/11 without any discernable parking problems at the airport.  Granted, most of the open spaces in the long-term lot are at the far northern end -- but compared to major airports, that's not all that long of a hike to the terminal.  Heck, at some big airports, the trek from the ticket counter to the gate is longer.  And regardless of the distance, the point is that there are always plenty of parking spots at the airport.

Now, folks, I have no problem with the convenience an elevated parking ramp would provide for the one or two times I use the airport every year, but it's not worth the $120 million bond we taxpayers would have to back for it.

FRIDAY FUN STUFF

A few odds and ends on a Friday before a holiday weekend ...

[1] Looks like there's more than meets the eye with St. Mary's hospital's sudden and unexpected withdrawal of support from the Catherine's Care Center medical clinic for the indigent, as reported here last week.  What's becoming clear is that the decision was made without the knowledge of St. Mary's executive staff and was in fact prompted by a vendor for the hospital who disliked the doctor who has been donating his time and talent to the Care Center.  The whole thing stinks, folks, and threatens the well-being of one of the most effective healthcare programs for our community's impoverished citizens.  I'll have more on this story for you next week.

[2] Better late than never.  Looks like the editorial writers for the Grand Rapids Press have gotten aboard our bandwagon in demanding that the Grand Rapids Public School District return to the taxpayers the 2.5 million bucks it raised from them last year to buy new school busses.  Yesterday, a week after we had propounded upon the issue, the Press agreed in its lead editorial that those dollars needed to be returned to the taxpayers now that the school district has outsourced student transportation and no longer needs to buy busses.

[3] Speaking of outsourcing the bussing, it looks like G.R.P.S. superintendent Bert Bleke told a fib to school board members and taxpayers.  The $250 bonus each district bus driver is slated to receive when he or she converts to an employee of Dean Transportation isn't being paid by Dean but by the school district.  Bleke justified his tall tale by explaining the ruse:  The check for each bonus will be coming from Dean, but the school district is providing Dean the funds for it.  Well, folks, what can you expect of a man who is grimly holding onto the superintendent's seat long enough for his pension to vest and then is retiring -- BUT not actually retiring because he will then let the school district pay him as a consultant to advise the new superintendent?

[4] Speaking of government pensions, where is the hue and cry for the scalp of Grand Rapids City Manager Kurt Kimball who tripled the City's pension liabilities to get the union for City workers to agree to a temporary slowdown in pay hikes?  And what about the City Commissioners who agreed to this?  This is a financial tsunami just over the horizon that will drown River City. If General Motors and Ford are on the verge of Chapter 11 now that they are in the shadow of their own pension tsunamis, what made Kimball ever think he could triple the liability of a defined-benefit plan without even getting his shoes wet?  People, this is the height of incompentence or arrogance or both of a city manager who has had this post for far too long.  We deserve a lot better for the $130,000+ we pay Kimball every year.

[5] Speaking of budget woes:  This story will give you a taste, dear readers, of how the City of Grand Rapids will use its cash crisis to stick it to area residents in some very petty ways.  As you know, the Grand Rapids parks department hosts a softball league for adults.  The teams of the league pay the City a fee to cover the cost of umpires, lights, and other direct costs.  This season a parks department official notified the league members that the City will not let teams make up softball games that are rained out.  Keep in mind, folks, these teams have paid the City for the services it provides to host their games, and if there is a rain-out, then no game was played and so the City has incurred no costs.  Of course, the City has not offered to refund the portion of the fee it collects for games not played.  Nothing but a grubby grab for a few tax dollars.

ANOTHER WET KISS FOR THE PYRAMID BUILDERS

Last month we took the Grand Rapids Press to task for uncritically promoting in its editorial pages Amway founder Rich DeVos's latest claim upon the public purse -- i.e., the local and state tax subsidy for his new hotel downtown.  Apparently to show how even-handed it is when it comes to pyramid-builders, on Tuesday the Press used its editorial page (and earlier its front page) to lavish praise upon the Van Andel Institute, the big project of DeVos's late partner Jay Van Andel.

The Press cannot say enough nice things about the VAI.  It is a "grand venture" and an "enormous gift of the late Jay and Betty Van Andel" that will "enrich the local economy".  It will "bring the intellectual capital the area needs", "foster start-up companies", and transform scientific "discoveries into marketable products".  The Press was mute on whether the VAI can also stop bullets and leap buildings in a single bound.

All of the Press hype for the VAI is calculated to serve a specific purpose:  Rally the locals to pitch in and help Van Andel's heirs make a success of the VAI.  The Press argues that we are obligated to do this, because the "Van Andel family continues to show its commitment to medical and scientific research".  There's a few problems with this dubious logic.  First, what claim do the Van Andels have upon our time, energy, and dollars to support their private endeavors?  Second, why do the Van Andels need any help from us when their parents supposedly committed the bulk of their $2.6 billion Amway fortune to the VAI?

Finally, as reported here last week, the Van Andel heirs have not been forthcoming on how much or how little of that alleged fortune will actually be committed to the VAI.  In fact, they have been vigorously passing the hat to collect other people's money to finance the VAI.

None of our complaint about this is to dismiss the possibility of the VAI being a worthwhile venture.  But it is in the end a private venture, as it should be.  It also appears to be a risky one, because the fact remains that Grand Rapids is NOT a center for "life science" research and the likelihood of River City ever transforming itself into Bio-Tech Central is very small.  This is not to denigrate the charms of our hometown.  It's simply an acknowledgment of the fact that major centers for "life sciences" are already established elsewhere in the country.

Another problem, as noted here the other day, is that the venture capital for new businesses that might be spawned from VAI isn't found here in Michigan.  That's why they leave the winter-water-wonderland for green pastures on the East and West Coasts.  This brings to mind the original purpose of Amway heir Dick DeVos's Windquest company.  It was supposed to fill the venture capital gap in West Michigan.  Now Windquest is manufacturing metal shelving.  So, if the Amway fortune cannot be brought to bear one way or another to make a go of this dream of a "life sciences" corridor in G.R., why are we being called upon to do so?

Yet the Press hectors us on behalf of the Van Andels to help Grand Rapids become a hotbed for "life science" research and development to ensure the success of the VAI.  I think I'll pass on that.  Either the Van Andels and their co-horts, the DeVoses, have the bucks to make the VAI pay off, and so they don't need our help.  Or they don't have the bucks, contrary to years of promoting themselves as multi-billionaires, so why shouldn't we think all of this is not just another generation of hype to get our dollars into their pockets?

If you ask me, the emperor has no clothes and the suck-up Press will be the last one to report that fact.

"SHREDDER" OPHOFF REFUSES TO RELEASE GOVERNMENT RECORDS

"Shredder" Daniel Ophoff, the City's document disposal technician who also moonlights as the FOIA officer for the City of Grand Rapids (plus he is -- as pictured to the left -- a member of the River Rats), has sent us notice today that he refuses to release the public records LAW's office manager Mary Hines requested regarding statements the Boardwalk developers made to the City about the value of that property.

In the past Ophoff has destroyed government records to prevent them from being released to the public under the state's Freedom of Information Act.  Now he has resorted to accusing our Ms. Hines of deception and other trickery to obtain documents that she had plainly and openly requested a week ago, as is her right under FOIA.

Ophoff justified his refusal to disclose the documents to Ms. Hines for one reason only:  Her association with me, her boss, your executive director.  It has apparently eluded Ophoff that in doing so he has violated her First Amendment right of freedom of association.  The City government simply cannot deprive someone of his or her FOIA rights because of whom they may associate with.

Apparently Ophoff is concerned that Ms. Hines will share the requested documents with me, which he does not want to happen.  No doubt Ms. Hines will, but then Michigan's FOIA statute does not have anything to say about why a citizen may want records from the government.  Whatever reason Ms. Hines may have, she has the right to see the documents Ophoff is concealing from her.

Fear not, folks, Ms. Hines is appealing Ophoff's despicable decision to the Grand Rapids City Commission.  Ophoff's obstruction of open government will be overcome one way or another.  In the meantime, maybe we need to once again press the issue with the City Commission as to why they tolerate Ophoff and his colleagues in the City Attorney's office flacking for the Boardwalk developers.  Click here to e-mail your commissioners about this.

CITY COMMISSION VETOS PAY HIKES

At yesterday's weekly meeting the Grand Rapids City Commission voted against the pay raises the Local Officers Compensation Commission had awarded last week to the mayor and the commissioners.  Obviously they trembled at the thunderous voice of your esteemed executive director and could not deny the truth of his compelling statements against the big pay hikes, especially the sneaky manner in which they were awarded to our elected officials.

Either that or commonsense triumphed.

General George, a.k.a. Mayor Heartwell, led the charge yesterday morning against the unconscionable pay hikes, especially his own 53% raise.  Although doing so required the General to flip-flop from his previous flip-flop on getting a raise, he demonstrated once again how remarkably limber he can be in his public contortions.  However, no kudos to the General for getting it right on this issue.  All that happened was that his self-righteous sense of entitlement yielded to his preternatural need to appease public sentiment.  No profiles in courage here.

Nevertheless, it was a good day for the City's taxpayers and residents.  The only fly in the ointment was that compensation commission's big pay hike for the City Comptroller, an elected post currently held by Stan Milanowski, was allowed to go through.  The comptroller is the taxpayers' watchdog over the City's finances, and Milanowski could not have been much of a watchdog in light of the fiscal chaos consuming the City government.  (See article below.)  None of our elected officials should have been rewarded any of the taxpayers' largesse because of the City budget mess they've led us into.

NIXING PAY HIKES

On the editorial page yesterday, the Grand Rapids Press argued that the City Commission should veto the pay hikes for the mayor and the city commissioners that the Local Officers Compensation Commission mandated last week.  The Press got that right, though its reasons aren't as compelling as ours.  The Press stated that the mayor and the city commissioners should accept a raise during the current budget crisis.  We argued that the mayor's office was a part-time job under the City Charter and shouldn't be made into a full-time one with all the requisite perks just because the current holder of that office wants to spend more time acting as mayor than the law requires.

The Press however supported the compensation commission's pay raise for the City Comptroller (who people always forget is an elected official under the City Charter).  Actually the Press did not so much endorse the hike for the Comptroller's office as it did for its current occupant, Stanley Milanowski.  Indeed, the Press wrote how Milanowski as opposed to the office has been "long-slighted", how the raise is only a "matter of basic fairness" to Milanowski, and how only Milanowski has a "valid claim" to the raise.

Well, one would think the best argument for a raise should address the requirements of the office and not the particulars of the person currently holding it.  But, if the argument for a raise is going to be predicated upon the performance of the current occupant of the Comptroller's office -- or the City's financial watchdog, as the Press fashions it -- shouldn't Milanowski take the same hit as the mayor and the city commissioners for presiding over the City's slide into an unpredecented budget black hole?

VERMONT'S PREENSTERS

Looks like Calvin College's preensters got nothing on their colleagues at Middlebury College in Vermont.  On Sunday former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani gave the commencement address at that school.  Protestors there tied their mouths shut with red cloths during the address to announce their outrage at Guiliani's reign of terror over New York City that included, according to one of the organizers, "terrorizing the poor, the homeless, the artistic community, the queer community, [and] the minority communities" there.

Just to make sure no one misunderstood what the protestors thought of the ex-mayor, the editor of Middlebury College's student newspaper ran a photo likening Guiliani to Hitler.  (It's always Hitler or the Nazis, isn't it?  The leftists are getting mighty dull these days.)  Apparently forgotten by the protestors was Guiliani's heroic and steadfast leadership in the wake of the 9/11 attacks -- an object lesson on the unconquerable American spirit and the vitality of local government in this country.

At least the Vermont preensters make our own homegrown variety look responsible and reasonable in comparison. ;)

THE PREENSTERS REDUX

A comment from reader MW provoked further thoughts on this weekend's protest against President Bush by an assortment of Calvin College faculty, alumni, and students:

I would have thought having the President of the United States give the commencement address at a small college would have been a sufficiently special event to unite that institution regardless of individual political differences.

I think it was, which tells me that the protestors inordinately value their political opinions over the comity of their fellow faculty, alumni, and students.  I think this is unfortunate.  It is troublesome when politics are more important than the social ties that bind us.

Moreover, it becomes repellant when religion is trucked in to sanctify the primacy of political divisions.

At least their protest produced a moment for the rest of us to reflect upon the permament things that make for a good life.