January 4, 2019
Joe and Bill
During and after the township Board meeting on 10/16, you both made several points, to which the HBA (as a group) would like to respond. For the last two years, it has been our sincere objective to work cooperatively with the Township – and for a while we hoped that at least one of you might become allied with us – willing to work to remove unnecessary business regulations – with a focus on those not required to protect public safety. We sense that this possibility is now gone.
Support for Tax Abatements. Joe commented privately to Frank Crouse that the HBA had not supported the Township during the period that a tax abatement was being considered for Emagine Theater. Apparently Joe was out of the loop because, to the contrary, we did support the Township – per the attached emails. We strongly supported a policy of tax abatements to attract businesses – but NOT in such a way that the Township picks winners and losers as proposed. Frank Crouse worked with Bill and James on this matter – which we would assume Bill and James will corroborate.
Regarding the Surveys – the Township conducted two surveys of the business community – in 2014 and 2016; this is hardly ancient history, as Joe implied. The surveys clearly demonstrate that Hartland is not a friendly place for business.
All Hartland businesses were not surveyed: commercial developers and shopping center owners were excluded. Additionally, businesses that considered coming to Hartland but either abandoned the process or were rejected were similarly excluded from the surveys. Had such businesses been included, the survey results would likely have been much worse. We urge you to take an in-depth look at these surveys. Here’s a convenient place to see them all, including the 2012 Chamber survey
https://www.hartlandbusinessassociation.com/home/hartland-township-surveys/
Regarding Menards and Ramco
Joe indicated that we were “clueless” regarding Menards. What we do know is that Menards tried for over 8 years to come to Hartland, first on the Walden property (where it physically could not be done), and then on the Ramco property. Any company that tries for that long to come to Hartland was seriously interested. Some members of the Township Board actually commented that “they never really wanted to come to Hartland!” We don’t know any other company that has tried for such a long period to come to Hartland – before abandoning further efforts and going elsewhere.
The imposition of additional requirements/restrictions are often perceived as detrimental to a business’s operating plan, especially when the result is to limit its critical marketing methods. When such requirements are imposed, a strong message is delivered about whether or not the business is welcome. In some cases, this may not be the message intended; unfortunately, that clearly was the message heard and acted upon by Menards. This is not speculation by the HBA, but rather based on words directly from the Menard’s spokesperson – back in 2012 when Menards had just pulled out:
“We had wanted to build a store for many years in Hartland Township but were unable to come to an agreement with the Township Fathers about the site plan and fancy aesthetic improvements they were demanding that would have cost us huge dollars up front and more dollars down the road to maintain,” Abbott wrote in an email. “It’s disappointing because we felt that we gave it an honest effort but there were just too many obstacles.” “Abbott said that the company decided to terminate the contract on Hartland Township land and have decided to build new stores in Port Huron Township, Chesterfield Township and the City of Livonia.”
And although we cannot know, we suspect that after so much time, investment and frustration (including the effort to land Menards) – the Ramco project itself has been pushed to its breaking point.
We respectfully suggest that the Township be careful who it labels “clueless”.
Bill’s Recent Letter Was Unresponsive The HBA’s several letters to the Township specifically proposed that the Township commit to:
- An objective to make the regulatory climate in Hartland measurably more business friendly, and
- A joint effort to actually make Hartland more business friendly. That assumes that the Township has committed to such a goal!
The HBA offered to collaborate with the Township on such a project. After two years, we have never heard a single Board member acknowledge what is evident from the surveys – that Hartland is not perceived by its businesses as “business friendly”.
Instead of responding to items a) and b) above, the letter listed several individual and unrelated actions taken by the Board affecting specific businesses – events covered in the letter were not presented as any form of attempt to make Hartland business friendly. More importantly, it does not state that it is the Township’s objective to become more business friendly. Instead, the Township now openly claims that it already is business friendly – in a flyer mailed to all taxpayers.
The HBA Position.
The surveys demonstrate part of the problem. The Township apparently will not acknowledge that it accepts/agrees with the verdict of the surveys: that Hartland is a very difficult place to establish and operate a business. Without that acknowledgement, and the resulting commitment to measurably improve the regulatory climate – improvement simply won’t happen.
Directly observable evidence of the problem, quite apparent to all, includes:
- Loss of at least two major businesses – Walmart’s hasty departure, and Menards’ failure to launch.
- Unrelenting effort to hide businesses from view – through berms, vegetation, and signage restrictions making businesses less visible to customers.
- Businesses must attempt to operate without what they consider adequate signage.
Residents clearly state they want a strong business community, both to provide them with a variety of convenient shopping, and to provide local jobs. Unless the regulatory climate is changes – the business community will not get stronger.
The Required Change
In order to cause change, the Board must
- a) commit to the objective of becoming measurably more business friendly, and
- b) take action to make it happen.
We believe that the Planning Commission (PC) must be directed to implement new Board objectives. Past and present members of the PC have created the current regulations, which were duly adopted by the Board. For significant change to happen – the regulatory structure must be partially unwound:
- the current, or a changed future Board, must clearly establish new objectives, and
- the Board must appoint new members to the PC who are supportive of the new objectives, and
- the Board must approve regulations that are more supportive of the business community. (including repeal or revision of regulations that will prevent attainment of the objective).
The Board needs to become transparent – rather than claiming the theoretical independence of the PC, the Board needs to lead – to take responsibility for achieving a truly business friendly community.
Attack on the HBA. During the October 16th Call to the Public, we think both of you got carried away – saying you were sick and tired of the HBA, that it was continuously whining, in an alternate reality, and clueless. Until that moment, we believed that we could work collaboratively with the Township, behind the scenes. We believed that by privately focusing attention on this matter, that the Township would be privately embarrassed – and would commit to the necessary change.
Both of you chose to publicly attack the HBA. You referred to the HBA as continuously whining, with the objective of embarrassing the Township. That you’re already sick of us. The truth is that the appearance of two members of the HBA at the October 16th Call to the Public was the very first time the HBA has gone “public”. The “Call to the Public” exists to allow citizens and organizations such as the HBA to raise issues publicly with our elected officials. Contrary to what Bill apparently believes, our objective has been to avoid publicly embarrassing the Township. Instead, our representatives experienced open hostility toward our organization and its leaders. We made it abundantly clear that our intent has been only to exert our influence privately – that we believed the Township would do the right thing.
The message we are receiving loud and clear is that the existing Board does not support our proposals to create a more business friendly climate. It has instead issued a bulletin to all Hartland taxpayers declaring itself “business friendly”, when all the evidence is to the contrary (fake news!). It has not (to our knowledge) issued new business friendly guidance to the PC – which would create an environment where the HBA might legitimately engage with the PC in a review of regulations. Without such guidance to the PC, it would be inappropriate and ineffective for representatives of the HBA even to contact the PC, let alone propose changes.
Had such guidance been given the PC, we would still have required schedules of ordinance review sessions, and with drafts of proposals under consideration. To say the least, we are disappointed in the lack of response by our Township officials.
Cause and Effect. There is mounting support for political activism – activism not unlike that at the Federal level that brought Trump to power – with similar objectives to reduce over-regulation, to improve business competitiveness, and to create job opportunity. In spite of opposition by the “Deep State”, in two years much Federal regulation has been reduced, with corresponding benefits = more jobs, increased competitiveness, stronger companies, and less unemployment. We believe this too will happen in Hartland – either on a collaborative basis or as a result of political activism. Change is coming, and we believe too much in Hartland to be silent.
Approved by the Entire Membership – Hartland Business Association
Link to video of October 16th Board Meeting