ASK ELi TO INVESTIGATE: Why Did People Vote Yes?

This week’s “Ask ELi to Investigate” is a follow-up to last week when we looked at why people voted “no” on the question of authorizing City Council to sell three parking lots. Today we’re looking at why 4,858 people (about 56.6% of those who voted) voted “yes.”

An unscientific but thoughtful sample: I collected feedback from four citizens who voted “yes,” including one who gave answers reflecting conversation with two additional people who voted “yes”, bringing us nearly parallel to last week’s sampling. This sample may not be representative of "yes" voters, but I think their answers do help to capture the range of reasons many “yes” voters probably had. We can break respondents' answers down into these six categories:

1. A “yes” vote would have kept a good planning and review process going, and that was in the best interests of East Lansing.

This was a theme that pervaded everyone’s answers: authorizing Council to sell the parking lots would have allowed us to keep going forward on what these voters saw as a good planning and review process for an area they believe badly needs the kind of redevelopment proposed. Many saw selling the parking lots as integral to East Lansing’s best interests, including by maintaining good relationships with good developers who want to redevelop East Lansing. They also believed the review process was going to work to protect the interests of the citizens.

One summarizes this issue this way: “Fundamentally I believe in looking forward, not looking in the past, and as well, I fundamentally believe in government's ability to do good things and to protect the public's interest. I am not naive. I understand that it doesn't always happen, but I believe it does, can, and should.”

Respondents felt confident that the rest of the planning process would have protected us against disasters of which some “no” advocates warned. For example, a second person said, “Under state law the planning and development process is designed to move through a series of steps creating several decision points, any of which may halt the process. While it is tempting to demand a complete package including financing details before a Park District site plan is approved, treating the sale authorization as a referendum on the whole project—when there were significant details yet to be resolved—only sends the message that East Lansing is unwilling to seriously contemplate substantial redevelopment.”

A third person’s answer: “I voted ‘yes’ because it would have given the community the ability to begin a thoughtful debate about the future of the Park District. It was my experience that both DTN and the City of East Lansing worked very hard to accommodate the needs and desires of stakeholders in a way that was substantively different from the process that occurred relative to City Center II. A specific example of the demonstrated willingness to cooperate came in the form of the City’s agreement to make the proposed parking ramp not only larger to include more parking at City expense, but City-run as opposed to privately owned and run.”

A fourth summed it up this way: “any final development agreement would have been subject to the same public scrutiny before the sale of the properties.”

One of those already quoted above added, “I voted ‘yes’ because the process to develop a project of this magnitude and significance is long and costly. Few developers have the wherewithal to pull it off. At the most basic level, the ability to assemble a sufficient number of urban parcels allowing for a coherent and coordinated development is vital. Without reasonable assurance of land assembly, this developer, or any other developer for that matter, is unlikely to pursue redevelopment in the Park District area and there is no reason to think any developer will come forward in the near future.” 

As this last remark suggests, the concern that we may have lost the ability to work with DTN also came up among the reasons people voted “yes”:

2. DTN is a well-resourced, reliable, community-oriented developer with whom we should be glad to partner.

The bad experience with City Center II and Strathmore Development left many relieved to be working with DTN. Even among those who did not want to authorize City Council to sell the lots at this time, DTN has a strong reputation for being a community-engaged developer and for building properties that look good and function well. A fear is that potentially losing DTN may mean being stuck with a much less positive experience and outcome. (As ELi has reported, DTN has indicated they are looking at another plan that does not involve the parking lots.)

One person surveyed said, “after that [City Center II] project fell apart leaving blight and an unreliable developer, we were fortunate to have DTN come in with the resources and willingness to cooperate with the community and the City to create something viable. It may be a very long time, if ever, before a developer of that caliber is interested in investing in the site.”

These concerns were related to the concern that by losing DTN’s Park District proposal, we would also lose a precious opportunity:

3. A “no” vote increases the odds we will lose a critical opportunity to increase resident-age diversity and business diversity in downtown East Lansing.

Many people—including voters on both the “yes” and “no” sides—seem to want to get post-college-age residents to move downtown. That’s in part because having post-college young people, middle-aged people, and seniors could create an audience for amenities everyone seems to want downtown, including in terms of dining and shopping. DTN’s project included a plan for senior housing.

Now that the ballot proposal has failed, some believe DTN will end up building a similar project elsewhere, benefitting another community rather than ours. Example: “I assume that DTN will attempt to salvage the sunk costs of this project by finding a willing partner in a neighboring community and developing something that looks substantially like their Park District Plan. In the last two years there have been several planning activities sponsored by several organizations (MSU, CATA, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission) focused on developing a new vision for the Michigan Ave. - Grand River Ave. corridor from downtown Lansing to Okemos and beyond. I have little doubt DTN will be able to find a location and a willing partner near East Lansing and will again, as has been the historic pattern, siphon off residents, customers, businesses and tax-base from the city.”

This respondent added, “If we want a diverse downtown we need a diverse population in close proximity to the downtown and we have systematically surrendered that diverse population over the past 50-plus years” to other areas.

Another spoke to how creating density of students downtown could free up rental houses, leading to revitalization of the older neighborhoods like Bailey and Oakwood near campus: “East Lansing needs to re-balance its downtown to encourage residents to move closer and to reestablish the neighborhoods. I think this could happen if we build dense apartments that remove the students from what were originally single-family homes, but also, the building of new restaurants, retail, etc., should also help to attract people.”

This overlaps with the fourth major theme, namely:

4. Replacing the parking lots and other under-utilized properties in that area in one fell swoop with something better designed, denser, more productive, and aimed at bringing in an age-diverse population is a great idea.

Here is a response that summed up this theme: “I voted ‘yes’ because East Lansing needs significant downtown redevelopment and that redevelopment needs to be far more dense and focused on capturing those of all ages who want to live, work, and play in an urban environment. According to the experts who track these demographics, the numbers are high and growing. It has been suggested that density and height will destroy the college-town charm. East Lansing is a dynamic, urban center trying to provide residential and commercial opportunities for diverse groups of people.”

The same person added that “the area is blighted and needs redevelopment. The disconnected surface parking lot system, the misaligned street pattern, the antiquated and failing water/sewer system, and the obsolete residential properties are not the highest and best uses for this area. It should not be preserved as is. It is currently disconnected from the rest of the downtown and creates a physical and visual barrier to properties to the west. But it is ideally located in proximity to a park, transit, and the campus, and needs to be developed and orientated in a way to make the best use of those features.” Further, “The alternative is to develop each parcel independently as a series of stand-alone projects, a strategy that will result in a fractured, disjointed, and expensive series of projects, none of which the community will find satisfactory.”

Another person said, “I abhor surface parking lots. Surface parking lots are the lowest level of land value/productivity possible, with the single sole exception of an abandoned building. Thus, I generally would embrace any opportunity to eliminate surface lots, and to build density.”

This overlaps in some ways with the following concern among “yes” voters:

5. The City needs to be able to move forward on important development without being hamstrung, or East Lansing will lose out.

Several of the “yes” voters polled were very troubled that a minority of voters could stop City leaders do from what they need to do to move us forward. Said one, “While I do understand that people (the 'no' voters) distrusted City Council's ability to properly shepherd a project in the manner that benefits residents, I believed that the first step had to be taken and that was the authorization to sell.” This person added, “I'd in fact like to authorize the city to sell Lot #1 and the Bailey Lot as well! Once authorized, then I believe it would be incumbent upon all of us to insure that we get the development that we deserve, and that we want. To me, the planning and approval process is the mechanism for controlling the development, it shouldn't have been through a sale/no sale [vote].”

Another respondent said it seems obvious that a city of our size should be able to enter into agreements involving about a million dollars without permission from a supermajority of voters: “In my opinion, the City Charter provision requiring a vote to dispose of such a small percentage of assets is ridiculous and a waste of time and resources. Regardless of what one thinks of the way the development process has been handled by past and current administrations and council members for the Park District area, having any municipality hamstringed in the development negotiation process by such an insanely restrictive provision isn’t helping anyone get anything done.”

Finally, there was an issue about how the “no” campaign was run:

6. The “no” literature from Neighborhoods 1^st was misleading and the group lacked transparency.

The “yes” campaign was criticized by some “no” voters for not being clear that “vote yes” mailers were coming from DTN, but one of the respondents to my survey says, “There was never any question in any reasonably aware person’s mind that the ‘yes’ materials originated from DTN.”

This person adds that “the arguments put forth by Neighborhoods 1^st, in my opinion, were misleading and not reflective of the reality of what citizens I encounter prioritize. Using purposefully inflammatory language like ‘another late-night bar’ and ‘more student housing’ on their flyers was an overused, fear-mongering ploy in a thinly-veiled effort to appeal to residents that haven’t spent any material time or money in downtown East Lansing in 20 years. To me, that just epitomized of the ongoing struggle this city has been having with its identity since I was a child and was put forth by a political action committee that refused to fully disclose its leadership, which in my opinion is much worse than a developer openly advocating for a ballot question that it would potentially benefit from.”

Another also responded to the wording of the Neighborhoods 1^st mailings: “I don't think the failure of the City Center II project should have relevance to this project. Granted, I do not know all of the history of that project, but my impression is that the city is trying to salvage a bad situation that had a lot to do with the developer.”

To sum up, “yes” voters who gave ELi their reasons feel a “no” vote failed the best interests of the people of the City of East Lansing. They wanted to see the area at issue redeveloped with dense, well-planned buildings, they trusted the planning process, and they trusted DTN.

To read last week's "Ask ELi to Investigate" about the reasons some people voted "no," click here.

Have a question you want ELi to investigate? Use our contact form!

Appreciate ELi's timely reports on what's happening in our City? Then donate to support our work bringing you editorial-free, high-quality news of the people, by the people, and for the people of East Lansing! Donate easily on line or donate by check. Because ELi is a recognized 501(c)3 nonprofit, your donations are tax deductible. Do your part to keep ELi humming!

Sign up for ELi’s Weekly Roundup! Click here to do that.