Residents Will Move Forward With Petition Drive for Parks Amendment

A group of residents wanting to amend the Rochester Hills charter to help protect city parks said early Tuesday they have no choice but to begin a petition drive to be sure the amendment gets on the November ballot.

Gary Uhl, president of the Bridgewood Farms Homeowners Association, led the residents who crafted the amendment, which says the city shall not sell, use for unintended purposes, transfer or exchange city-owned parks without first asking its residents in the form of a citywide vote.

It was a discussion that started during Monday night's city council meeting and lasted into the early morning hours Tuesday; in the end, the residents, city staff and council members all agreed that they want to protect parks.

But what they couldn't necessarily agree on was the way in which they would go about that mission.

Concerns about the amendment language and about potential unintended consequences of the amendment spurred council members to instead call for a public hearing on the issue.

That hearing will be July 18. In the meantime, a group including Uhl and two other residents, three members of city staff and three council members will work together to draft appropriate ballot language.

Uhl said he wants to work with the city, but "the clock is ticking," he said.

He met after the council meeting with other resident sponsors of the amendment — those he called "the nucleus of the group" — and decided to begin the petition drive to be sure the language gets on the ballot.

There is an August deadline for submitting the language to state elections officials.

"We have no choice but to start petitioning," he said. "It's a rock and a hard place for all of us."

What the residents wanted

Uhl and his supporters first offered the proposed amendment earlier this month. It was spurred by city leaders' recent exploration of on city park land near .

As it was written, the amendment said park property cannot be used for water reservoirs, nor can it be used for telecom towers, municipal offices, parking lots or wind turbines.

"In other words, if you want to do anything with park land, you must ask the residents first," said Susan Bowyer, president of the Cumberland Hills Homeowners Association, who helped Uhl present the amendment to city council.

Bowyer, Uhl and several residents who spoke in support of the charter amendment urged them to pass it Monday night. They also said that if it was not passed, they would organize their own petition drive to put it on the ballot themselves.

"Homeowners associations have teams ready to go door to door," said resident Peggy Fisher. "All members of the petition teams will be provided names of council members who voted for this and those who did not.

"Whether you approve placing it on the ballot or not, the residents will be sure it is."

All council members ultimately agreed by a voice vote to schedule the public hearing. Councilman James Rosen had earlier in the night offered a motion to approve the amendment, with the idea that the specific language could be changed by council at a later date. Only Councilman Ravi Yalamanchi supported Rosen's motion. Offering up an amendment to the city's charter would have required a super majority, or five "yes" votes.

What council wanted

Council members all spoke in support of the amendment's concept of getting a vote of the people before making changes to park land.

"You are looking to protect park property in the city," said city Councilman Nathan Klomp. "I don't think in a year where we've had the best park attendance in the city, that you'll find anybody who says 'I'm not interested in protecting park space.'

"In that vein, I support you 100 percent."

But what Klomp and other council members could not support was the exact language of the amendment, language that was somewhat unclear as to which changes would necessitate a vote of the people, and at what point in the planning process for such changes a ballot vote would be needed.

Mike Hartner, the city's longtime parks director, expressed his own reservations about the amendment, even though he has been one of the biggest champions of parks in the city.

"The idea of protecting parks has always been strong in every decision I've ever made and everything I've been a part of," he said. "I've never seen so much positive support. It verbalizes what a lot of people know: The quality of life in Rochester Hills is due a lot to open space."

But he raised concerns about needing to better delineate what constitutes "unintended use" of a park.

Hartner and Mayor Bryan Barnett mentioned the International Velodrome at as something that possibly could once have been affected by this amendment. Barnett also mentioned planned additions at the , which is a part of both Rochester Hills and Rochester; under the amendment language, a center for leadership development (like one planned there) may not be perceived as an "intended" use.

"How can we make sure at the end of the day we are enhancing the parks system?" Barnett asked.

He will be a part of the committee that works to draft the ballot language.