Grand Rapids Pundit

Proposal 2: Mayor Heartwell and the U of M

Posted by: GRPundit on Wednesday, 22nd Nov, 2006

The fallout from Proposal 2 continues. Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell has apparently decided that he wants the taxpayers of the city to pay for a federal lawsuit to stop the implementation of Proposal 2. Heartwell uses the same logical contortions of groups like BAMN to try and make an argument that banning racism and sexism somehow is discriminatory. The article linked above actually says that Prop 2 is a “civil rights violation.” It’s not clear if that’s a Heartwell quote or summary of his position, but it’s typical of the utter hypocrisy of the pro-racism lobby that Heartwell apparently belongs to.

But an even more interesting issue arises here. Mayor Heartwell, along with all the public officials in the state of Michigan, are required to take an oath of office. That oath reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the
United States, and the Constitution of this State, and that I will faithfully perform the duties of the office of __________________ in and for the City of _________________, County of ____________ and the State of Michigan, according to the best of my ability, so help me God.

Mayor Heartwell has taken a similar oath to “support… the Constitution of this State…” Proposal 2 is an amendment to the state’s constitution. The mayor is therefore looking at violating his oath and defying the state’s constitution. Filing a lawsuit to try and stop a state constitutional amendment certainly cannot be defined as supporting the constitution.

Perhaps the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman, has seen the legal light on this issue. She has decided to back off her earlier statements that she would fight Proposal 2 in court. When she addressed the university’s Board of Regents this week, she didn’t mention any lawsuit. In fact, she committed to working within the law:

“With last week’s passage of Proposal 2, I want to again assure the campus community that we remain fully dedicated to a diverse university and that we will obey the laws of our state,” said Coleman. “What will be essential is that all of us - students, faculty and staff and administrators - pursue all possible creative solutions to achieve diversity at the university within the boundaries of the law.”

We tried to find some statistics relating to minority enrollment at the U of M to compare with minority graduation, but we were unable to find that information. However, we did find some information on how California’s Proposition 209, similar to Michigan’s Proposal 2, affected universities in California.

The interesting outcome in California appears to be an increase in the number of minorities graduating from universities. That’s right, an increase. Why? Because enrolling students who would not otherwise qualify for admission to a top-tier university actually does the student a disservice. Think about it this way: if you were a B-average student and a top university admitted you based on something other than your grades, chances are you wouldn’t do so well, surrounded by A-average students in a very rigorous academic environment. Students not qualified to attend a top-tier university tend to drop out in higher rates. Therefore, it does them a disservice.

By admitting students to universities largely based on academic ability, students tend to apply for and attend the university that is closer to the academic rigor level they will succeed in. Therefore, the effect of Proposition 209 is that minority students tend to apply for admission at universities at the level of rigor they are more comfortable in. Therefore, instead of dropping out due to an inability to keep up, they tend to graduate at higher levels.

The reality of minority graduation rates bear this out. Rates stayed the same both before and after the passage of Proposition 209. That is, regardless of admissions levels of minority students, graduations rates were flat.

But of course, special interests to hate to see special favors melt away will do anything they can to preserve the status quo, as our mayor is demonstrating. Never mind the fact that the city is constantly complaining about a lack of funding and funds for critical services - apparently it’s more important to use our taxpayer dollars to try and overturn the vote of a majority of Michiganders.

Oh boy

Posted by: GRPundit on Friday, 3rd Mar, 2006

We just got a preview of the Grand Rapids City Commission’s upcoming agenda. The resignation of Robert Dean from the commission created an opening which the commission needs to fill. Candidates were interviewed yesterday for the appointment.

The interesting thing is that Mayor Heartwell says that the second round of interviews for the three finalists will include more hard-hitting topics, such as:

He believes they will be asked about their stand on whether to ask voters for an increase in city property or income taxes.

He also expects they will be quizzed on whether they support a living wage ordinance that could raise minimum wages in the city.

Oh boy. In other words, the litmus test will likely be something along the lines of, “do you think city government should be bigger and more invasive?” The response of “yes” will work in the candidate’s favor.

If both those issues pass in the city, get ready for making a bad economic situation even worse.

Grand Rapids State of the City 2006

Posted by: GRPundit on Friday, 10th Feb, 2006

Mayor George Heartwell starts his State of the City 2006 Speech by summarizing past state of the city speeches and reviewing accomplishments pertaining thereto.

First, he starts with cooperation between the city schools and the city government. Nevermind that his 2004 state of the city touted cost savings as a primary goal of collaboration between the two entities, now he says that they’re working together just great in building new schools. You know, bureaucrats are holding hands around the table. Wonderful news.

Second, the mayor reviews his commitment to reduce illiteracy in Grand Rapids. It’s a good and important goal. He says he wants to reduce illiteracy by 50% over the next 10 years.

The mayor then skips everything else he proposed in the 2004 state of the city, preferring not to review the things he did not accomplish, such as the education renewal zones. He also skips over his desire to strengthen the unaccountable Grand Valley Metro Council’s central-planning powers when it comes to land use, as well as his intense desire to expand wasteful and expensive mass transit systems, such as light rail.

He then moves on to a review of his second state of the city, in 2005, which was essentially a blabber-fest about pollution and saving the world’s environment, all from City Hall. He touts all the wonderful things the city government is doing without mentioning much in the way of specific end points. He does mention, however, the new hybrid electric busses which the ITP will be purchasing at the bargain basement price of $500,000 each.

The next portion of the speech focuses on the Grand Rapids economy and its growth. This is certainly good news. Several anecdotal items are cited as examples of local companies which are expanding.

However, the following section is where the mayor goes completely wrong. He makes the following statement:

Before I talk about our course of action for economic development, I want to address our “ship’s” fuel reserves and our prospects for refueling on our way to our destination of economic health. I want to talk about the city’s budget.

Does anyone notice something wrong? We’ll tell you if you haven’t figured it out. As we’ve previously pointed out, the mayor doesn’t distinguish between the health of the city and the revenue of city government. He says in his speech that City Hall is what keeps the “ship” of Grand Rapids moving forward. He doesn’t understand that city government is usually the road block to further economic growth, not the reason for growth.

However, Mayor Heartwell does go on to explain the Lean Thinking initiative the city government is using to improve operating efficiency. It’s good to see that they are working on making the government operate better within its means.

Then comes the big stink bomb. More taxes. Heartwell goes on, complaining about lost “state revenue sharing,” which has been reduced over the last several years. It’s the usual complaint from city governments. As the Michigan economy limps along, the politicians and bureaucrats want more money. Well, it’s not coming down the pike. Perhaps they haven’t looked at the unemployment rates in Michigan lately.

The point of this speech:

[W]e are rapidly approaching the time at which we must bring a tax increase question before the voters.

Yes, that’s right. Hang on to your wallets, again.

But! Here comes the logical fallacy that the mayor is so wonderful at espousing. Out of one side of his mouth he says that taxes need to be raised. But lo and behold, he then goes on to propose tax abatements for industrial facilities. Nevermind that manufacturing is going the way of the telephone operator, the real point is that he implicitly recognizes that tax reductions help economic development. If tax abatements didn’t spur growth, why would they use them? But, at the same time, he proposes a general tax increase to prop up the bureaucracy. Which one is it, Mr. Mayor? Growth of government or growth of the economy?

Finally, Heartwell closes his speech with a promise to build a sustainable business park. He want to provide everything anyone ever wanted for development: high-speed internet, wireless internet, rail transportation, green space, on-site recycling, storm water capturing, and even a chicken in every pot. Wait, he didn’t say the chicken part, but the mayor promises everything else. Perhaps he’s never heard of what the free market is. Should city government be in the internet service business? How about rail transportation? Is your wallet getting lighter?

Essentially, the speech was, once again, about further government expansion and tax increases, although this year the tax increase part was explicit. The mayor only proposed one item which reduces government – the lean thinking initiative. Hopefully, one day, the mayor will realize that the size of city government is inversely related to the economic health of the city.

State of the City Annual Follow-up

Posted by: GRPundit on Tuesday, 31st Jan, 2006

Each year we’ve looked at past State of the City speeches to see what was proposed and what was actually accomplished. See last year’s analysis, as well as 2004’s.

A quick recap: Two years ago, the mayor trumped more money for schools, city-school partnerships in administration, and more environmental education. He accomplished essentially nothing of what he promised in 2004.

Last year, the mayor focused on more government intervention in development, a personal crusade against global warming, and a promise to keep pressing for wasteful and espensive mass transit systems. Once again, not much accomplished here.

The interesting thing is that he has focused very little on actual operations of city government. What does city government do? Or, rather, what should a city government do? Provide police and fire, run a water and sewer system, provide for decent roads, and create an environment where business and people want to move to.

But what, if anything, has the mayor proposed to ensure that these things are provided? Nothing. The mayor confuses the health of the city with the growth of city government. A constant theme in his speeches is that state revenue-sharing has been reduced. City government should remain small and relatively non-interventionist in the economy. Less money for city government means fewer busybody bureaucrats, and that’s like kryptonite to politicians.

It’s most important that the city stick to core city functions. However, this mayor and city commission continue to insist that it is their role to practice social engineering. When government picks the winners and losers, we all lose.

Mayor in Panic Mode

Posted by: GRPundit on Tuesday, 29th Mar, 2005

Grand Rapids mayor George Heartwell held a rally in the Creston neighborhood on Monday to continue his so-called “rebellion” against cuts in Community Development Block Grants.

The mayor, along with all the big-government spenders are panicking lately because of reduced revenues to local and state government.

But the real kicker is the mayor’s quote regarding these cuts and his mission to extract more money from taxpayers, saying he won’t stop, “until God’s reign of justice permeates our world.”

We didn’t realize that Community Development Block Grants were part of God’s master plan. In fact, we have yet to see a section of the Bible that commands those in government to use the force and effect of government to extract money from people, at gunpoint if necessary, to redistribute to the poor. We always thought that the most virtue in giving was when one is giving from the heart, not when one is forced to do so under the threat of jail.

Folks like the mayor, and other Great Society apologists, are going batty because they see their welfare state being dismantled. Nevermind they have nothing to show for it.

State of the City Analysis

Posted by: GRPundit on Thursday, 27th Jan, 2005

Mayor George Heartwell gave his state of the city speech for 2005 on January 15th.

First, let’s go over last year’s state of the city speeches. He gave three, but only two were available online.

In his first 2004 SotC speech, Heartwell concentrated on education. His fluff-filled tome focused on adult literacy, city/schools operating partnerships, and education renewal zones, to divert more money to the schools. Oh, and he ended that speech with the old cliche, that it’s for the children, “…all the children.”

His second speech, which we analyzed here, was a typical stump for more political power, centralization, and central planning. He wants more money spent on a wasteful mass transit system and strengthening of the Grand Valley Metro Council for more “regional planning.” The one bright spot here is his stumping for tax-free renaissance zones. We wonder if he has any latent understanding of why tax-free zones work, but we’re doubtful.

This year’s theme? Sustainability. Whatever that means. Well, we do know what it means, but folks like the mayor won’t admit what it means. Essentially more government control of economic development. But we know that is a contradiction of terms.

Heartwell starts out the speech by touching on the issue of violence in the inner city. He looks forward to a committee’s recommendations to heal racism.

Next, he looks back at last year’s education speech and goes over accomplishments from the last year. He congratulates himself for raising taxes twice for Grand Rapids Public Schools. He discusses the success of an adult literacy program.

Then he talks about the joint operational project between the city and GRPS. The strange part about this is that it isn’t a joint operational project at all. All he can refer to is working with the schools to support more minority contractors and the sale of the West Middle School building to a developer. Huh? Last year he talked about saving money by using joint human resources, accounting, and groundskeeping departments. How have any of the above saved either the city or the schools money?

Finally, he says that a joint program with the West Michigan Environmental Action Council and GRPS has helped environmental education. But, as we pointed out previously, this program, basically to collect trash around streams, costs the city about $564 per bag of trash collected. And we thought the schools and city were hurting for money.

And then he laments the fact that the Education Renewal Zones concept hasn’t progressed as much as he liked.

Then we move on to the meat of the speech. What’s he going to do for us this year?

First, he goes over the usual doom and gloom predictions of how horrible the world will be if the government doesn’t take a larger role in our lives. For example, he cites this example: “The United States, which presently uses 40% of all the world’s oil production and 23% of all coal production will be experiencing crisis levels in these resources.”

Didn’t they make those types of dire predictions in the 70s? Yeah, and we’re still here.

So, we can see where this is going already.

He then blabbers on (see if you can make it through his speech without falling asleep) about sustainability and all kinds of government partnerships to make peoples lives better, in a sustainable way. He goes on to lament the state of the economy in Michigan and how social equity (another buzz-word of the extreme left) must be kept in mind.

The most fun (and laughs) comes from Heartwell’s diatribe about electricity usage in Grand Rapids. He wants to reduce the City’s dependence (he doesn’t clarify if he means the City government, or the people in the city - he probably doesn’t make that distinction in his own mind) on non-renewable resource power by 20% by 2008.

His plan to do so? Wind power. And you thought cellphone towers were ugly.

The mayor concludes with what he hopes the next generations will write about this one:

In 2005 and 2006, this diverse group of people in Grand Rapids found ways to interconnect business with the environment – maximizing commerce and nature.
This generation responded to the challenges of globalization by creating a city that led the state in productivity and returned the country to prosperity.

This generation created a city where neighbors cared for neighbors and children were safe.

This generation created schools that maximized each child’s potential and allowed us to respond to rich economic opportunities.

Truly, this generation created a city that sustained life.

Laudable goals. But government, bureaucrats, bureaucracy, high taxes, regulation, and central planning aren’t the way to get us there. Anyone ever look at the history of Detroit?

Hold on to Your Wallet!

Posted by: GRPundit on Tuesday, 3rd Feb, 2004

The era of big government is just beginning…

The newly-installed Grand Rapids mayor George Heartwell gave his second state of the city speech last week at the Rotary Club downtown. His message? More government is needed to improve the regional economy.

He essentially outlined three initiatives that included more funding for downtown, a bigger regional mass-transit system, and more centralized land-use planning.

First, the mayor wants to continue the improvement of the GR downtown district. Sure, downtown’s been doing well over the last decade, but the best way to continue that improvement is to keep taxes low. The continuation of renaissance zones seems to be the most effective tool to increase investment. In fact, renaissance zones should be expanded to all of downtown - or even all of the city… then we’d see some enormous growth rates in Grand Rapids. However, the mayor prefers to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize new business growth - as the governor proposed at her state of the state address. No one seems to realize that this $500 million in proposed venture capital has to come from somewhere… and when was the last time bureaucrats were successful in conjuring up the best investment avenues for money?

Second, and perhaps most laughably, even the new mayor is stumping for light rail service. Nevermind the fact that light rail in most urban and suburban areas is a colossal waste of money, except for in the most densely-populated cities - we need to go for it! (See Myths of Light Rail Transit) And where is the money for this going to come from? That’s right! Not the people riding the system, but you and I, the faithful taxpayers of the Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) service area. The current system subsidizes each rider with taxpayer dollars to the tune of $6 per rider - only 13% of revenue is generated by bus fairs.

Finally, the mayor wants further expansion of the Grand Valley Metro Council, the regional super-government wannabe organization. Wyoming has smartly refused to join, and kudos to them for that decision. The mayor wants to strengthen the GVMC’s land-use powers. In other words, they want to be able to tell you where you can and can’t live. As the mayor talks out of one side of his mouth about regional planning, which drives up the cost of housing for everyone, he also talks about affordable housing. One government-caused problem (a housing shortage, which drives up prices), needs to be solved by more government! A perfect circle. Who said politicians don’t do everything they can to make themselves important?

I thought we had learned our collective lesson that increased government spending and revenue is a gigantic drag on the economy - but apparently not. Is it any wonder that Michigan, a high-tax state, has an unemployment rate way above the national average? Maybe it’s time to study a little economics and let the market correct our past public policy mistakes.