The January 26, 2016 Oakland Township Board meeting was very informative regarding the proposed Blossom Ridge Consent Judgment that the Board is considering. There were many facts and opinions shared. Our Township Attorney also corrected many inaccurate claims that have been shared by some of the citizens opposed to the development.
Because the issue is so complex, it is difficult (and almost impossible) to accurately summarize the points made by the Attorneys, Consultants and citizens at the meeting. As a result, I recommend that citizens who have an interest in this issue, and are willing to spend time understanding the many complexities involved in this decision, visit the following Township website and watch the meeting proceedings.
Once you go to the website,
- On Playlist tab, click on Board of Trustees 2016
- On Video tab, click on January 26, 2016 BOT meeting
- On Chapter tab, click on Chapter 5
It will take you to the 4:50 (minute:second) point in the meeting.
- The Former Oakland County Chief Judge Barry Howard, who was the arbitrator in this case, gives his presentation until the 27:40 point in the meeting.
- Between 27:40 and 52:20, Oakland Township Planning Consultant, Dick Carlisle, discusses the proposed development from a planning perspective using our zoning ordinance as a guide.
- Between 52:20 and 96:00, Township attorney Dan Kelly give his report on the legal implication of this case.
The rest of the meeting primarily shares citizen inputs on this issue – some in support and some in opposition.
As I stated, it is complex and not easy to simplify for this post, but only by watching the reports will you understand the legal and planning issues our Board must consider.
The Board is scheduled to make a decision on this matter on February 2, 2016 at a 5 PM meeting at the Township Hall.
Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? This issue has been a divisive one in our Township for years. I apologize for not being able to give you a ‘Reader’s Digest’ version of this issue, but I feel it is important for those who want to form their own objective position on this issue to watch the video.
I agree with you that citizens should watch the whole video.
You failed to point out and thereby dismissed as unimportant in your overview above that the Board made comments – with Treasurer Langlois giving the most complete summary of her thinking to date followed by Clerk Reilly. Hearing Board comment is very valuable.
The purpose of the meeting was to share information from the Judge, Township Attorney and Planning Consultant, and to gather input from the citizens. It was not intended to have the Board members share their opinion on the issue. The Board would have an opportunity to share their opinion AFTER gathering input from the citizens.
HOWEVER, I found it VERY OBVIOUS that Treasurer Langlois’ and Karen Reilly’s prepared comments, made BEFORE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE HEARD, were strictly politically motivated. Treasurer Langlois made the specific request to amend the agenda to allow for Board comments before hearing from the public. With an audience as large as was there, clearly supporting her position, why waste an opportunity to make a campaign speech?
That is precisely what their comments were!
If we are going to stray into attributjng motivation to Langlois and Reilly’s comments – I concluded that their comments were their sincere expressions of opinion after reviewing all the information they had received.
What soliod evidence do you have that the meeting was to exclude Board comment?
At the time Langlois and Reilly made their comments, I certainly had no data on the sentiment in the citizens in attendance. How did you know their sentiment at the time Langlois and Reilly spoke? Did you poll the the audience?
Why would Jeanne and Karen express their opinion regarding the issue PRIOR TO getting citizen input, if not to influence others? Others can form their own opinion regarding what they see as the motivation.
The meeting on January 18th called by Karen’s husband at ‘Nick’s’, was clearly an effort to ‘rally the troops’. Many of those present at the meeting were at the Board meeting. There was no attempt to communicate or provide the ‘other perspective’ on the issue.
You prefer the trustee who sits silently telling no one what he/she thinks and you can’t influence them because you don’t know their thinking?
Has John Reilly lost his freedom of speech when his wife was elected? Is he required to hold a private meeting and present views he does not hold?
Bob–the impartial reputation you have sought in your blog and have attested to in meetings has eroded as a result of these recent posts. It is clear you do not want the Blossom Ridge development and have resorted to arguing by posing questions to Michalski. Blossom Ridge is going to happen and the last post seems to be the death throes of your lost argument. More stone kicking and questioning from your peers will be sure to follow tomorrow’s meeting. However, perhaps you can clarify. Do you really think Michalski was arguing that Reilly shouldn’t have an opinion? He’s arguing that the group’s purpose was to get together to get information against the proposal not to hear both sides of the issue. That was it. For other readers, please note: whenever you hear attacks against a person rather than their arguments or ideas, they are always on the losing side. Listen carefully and re-read this thread with that in mind.
Dave Anonymous – I took he comments as criticism of John Reilly, that as husband of Karen Reilly he is unreasonably expected to provide both sides. I could , I suppose, take the comments as mere statement of fact.
The action I will use in the future is to explore with Michalski what he is saying before applying the label “absurd”.
Note that on my website, your anonymous comments would not be posted.