You are Not Going to Believe What the City Manager Said on the Mill Street “Placemaking” Grant Application

I think I made my feelings about city manager Jonathan Smith’s grand “placemaking” plan, and the way he went about it, quite clear in this post. Since that time, I’ve received information from a FOIA request that I’d like to share with you. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion after reviewing the documents for themselves (and you are always free to disagree with mine), I personally think Smith wasn’t exactly accurate with some of the facts on the grant application. Whether you agree or disagree, it’s important that you let your city council members know what you think, especially if you’re over 60 years of age. (More on Smith’s disrespect for the over-60 crowd later.)

I’ve attached a copy of Smith’s 30-page grant application here, and I’ll highlight my concerns and comments one at a time. I’ve made a follow-up request for information regarding some of these statements, and I’ll note them as I go along. You may see different things that concern you. If you do, then please let your city council members know that as well.

Smith’s Purported Qualifications to Handle This Project
(Page 8 of the application)

Smith mentioned the “city hall project” in the same paragraph that he discussed his ability to ensure projects are completed on time and on budget. Interesting, that. Once I finish the tedious task of going through all the billing for the city hall/DPW expansion, I’ll let you decide how well that project went from a taxpayer’s perspective.

“Community Engagement”
(Pages 14 and 22 of the application)

Smith told grant officials that “[a]t the time of this application submittal, community engagement sessions are still in process.” (See page 14 and please note the grant application was submitted on December 13, 2023.) He claimed that these sessions were/are being held through January 18, 2024. (See page 22.) I sent a follow-up FOIA request for information regarding these ostensible “community engagement sessions” because I’ve seen absolutely zero public invitations seeking feedback on this project. (Have you seen anything?) If Smith produces any support for this claim, I’ll update this post.

Ageism
(Concerns of People Aged 60 and Over Are Dismissed as Irrelevant)
(Page 14 of the application)

Smith alleged he’s received feedback from “our younger and middle-aged residents (60 and under) . . . [and they] have responded positively to our Mill Street Placemaking Proposal.” Smith apparently thought this age-related comment was important to mention, even though Smith quoted 2020 census data (also on page 14 of the application) indicating exactly 50% of the Clarkston population is age 50 or older.

The only evidence of requested feedback that I have at this point is Smith’s December 7, 2023, email to Sarah and James Schneider (The Fed owners) and Robert Esshaki (owner of the former Rudy’s Market and future owner of two restaurants in place of Rudy’s Market and the old Clarkston News Building). Smith sent a second email on December 12, 2023, to Sarah Schneider, Esshaki, Sue Wylie (mayor), and Amanda Forte (council member) asking for letters in support of the project. Did anyone else provide feedback, and if so, were any of those people city residents over the age of 60? If they were, why are they being ignored based on their age? People over 60 – and under 60 – pay the same property tax rates, so this comment reflects a disturbing and unacceptable bias on the part of a city official acting in his official capacity.

I am also very interested in learning how Smith distinguished between “younger and middle-aged” residents and residents who are not in these categories, particularly since the application material asked how Smith’s “project execution plan actively takes into consideration the lived experiences and abilities of all of your community members such as race, age, gender, ability, religion, socioeconomic status, etc.” (Bolding mine.) One of the six grant criteria (found on page 2) states that the “[p]roposed idea must be considerate and intentionally inclusive of the whole of the local community, regardless of race, age, ability, gender, religion, socioeconomic status etc. . . .” (Bolding mine.)

Did the city manager use voting records to decide which city residents had a valid opinion – and which city residents did not? Smith’s “placemaking” space is (and will continue to be) an area of public accommodation, and discrimination based on age in matters of public accommodation is unlawful under state and federal law.

I look forward to learning more about the feedback Smith received and why he thought it was important to emphasize the age of the people giving it. I’ve sent a follow-up request for records of this purported feedback, and if Smith produces anything beyond what he’s attached to his grant application or provided in response to my FOIA request, I’ll update this post.

Continued Failure to Distinguish Between
the Taxpayer/Owners of Mill Street
and Privately Owned Restaurants
(Page 15 of the application)

Smith’s three points are so priceless, I’ll quote them.

1. 1. It is our feeling that our Mill Street Placemaking project will contribute to the health, happiness, and well-being of the patrons of our downtown businesses by providing them with a space that they can connect with and enjoy, time after time. They can use it as a quiet space for reflection or a landmark for meeting family or friends. (Bolding mine.)

1. 2. By addressing the needs of the patrons, we also anticipate that customer loyalty to our downtown businesses will gradually increase, thereby strengthening the City’s relationship with our business owners and Main Street Oakland County program. (Bolding mine.)

1. 3. The above two benefits will improve the overall strength of our business district and, presumably, make us more resilient in an economic downturn relative to other communities not focused on Placemaking.

In my last post, I told you that Smith has zero interest in focusing on taxpayers and residents. Now you can clearly see proof of this in his own words. For some reason, taxpayers apparently need to be concerned about “customer loyalty” to private businesses. And let’s be very clear – Smith cares only about the restaurant patrons in the social district, not the other businesses in the city. The social district was established to benefit the Schneiders (The Fed owners), Honcho (owned by Curt Catallo), the Union Woodshop (owned by Curt Catallo), and the Clarkston Union (owned by Curt Catallo). Esshaki’s two yet-to-be-opened restaurants also stand to benefit from the social district once he obtains liquor licenses for them.

Imagine how much more responsive the city would be to our needs if Smith perceived residents and taxpayers as “patrons” of city services. Unfortunately, the only “customer loyalty” Smith seems to care about is the loyalty from outsiders to the restaurants serving alcoholic beverages. I have yet to hear a cogent explanation why I should give a flying eff about the loyalty of Catallo’s, Schneider’s, or Esshaki’s private restaurant patrons. Have you?

A Passing Nod to the Historic District Commission
But No Mention of the Planning Commission
or City Council
(Page 14 of the application)

Were you aware we have one-man government in Clarkston? Smith failed to mention that the Planning Commission and Historic District Commission (HDC) have not weighed in on his grand project – and the HDC could stop it in its tracks if it wished to do so. If that happened, the city would have to sue its own HDC for permission to go forward, and by that time, the city would miss the August completion deadline under the grant terms. And yet the only mention of the HDC was one cherry-picked comment from the December 11, 2023, city council meeting that “it will be important to educate visitors on the history of Mill Street, a roadway that was the primary access to the Clarkston (grist) Mill.” Odd that Smith omitted the other concerns HDC members expressed at that city council meeting, which questioned whether a historic street should be shut down and repurposed at all.

And the Planning Commission? Not mentioned. Who cares what they think anyway, right?

The city council was also not consulted about any plans or costs. Smith ambushed them with this “placemaking” proposal, gaslighted them by limiting the information they received to only what he wanted them to know, and couched his presentation in a way that was designed to solicit their general feelings about the project rather than receive any concrete approval to spend any taxpayer dollars.

Smith Admits His Scheme Will Cost More Than $50,000
And Taxpayers Will Be on the Hook for the Excess Costs
(Pages 16 and 21 of the application)

Smith plans to make “every effort” to find some as-of-yet unknown concrete contractor willing to “partially donate” his/her services under the guise of simply calling the “placemaking” proposal a “Community Project.” No doubt he will be able to find someone to buy into this scheme, given that concrete contractors are in high demand and costs are rising so high that we can’t even get our sidewalks repaired within any reasonable budget. 😂 But, if Smith doesn’t find this magic contractor, he’ll proceed anyway.

If you go to page 21 of the application, you’ll find Smith’s fantasy budget for this project. He’s estimated $32,000 for the decorative concrete that “assumes [a] Community Project Discount.” He doesn’t tell us what the proposed cost will be if he doesn’t find a magical concrete contractor willing to provide partially free services to the city. (Frankly, I think Smith would have better luck finding a unicorn in Depot Park.)

In my last post, I told you to hold onto your wallets, and I was right. On page 16, Smith says that “[t]he cost of benches, planters, lighting, and bollards ($13,300) would then need to be covered by City operational funds and/or donated funds” if he can’t find a concrete contractor willing to reduce his/her rate. (Bolding mine.) On page 21, Smith’s fantasy budget also ignores the cost to Clarkston taxpayers for all of Hubbell, Roth & Clark’s contract engineering services (because their work is apparently “free” if their fees are paid with the city’s operational funds). Using that same logic, all of the Department of Public Works labor on this project is apparently “free” as well. Smith listed zero costs for bench and planter installation labor, and only $900 for lighting and bollard installation labor. Smith expressly told General Motors that the cost for DPW labor and engineering expenses will be “covered by City Operations Budget.” (That means you will be paying for it.)

Since the city council has not authorized spending even $1.00 for this project, it’s a misrepresentation to imply to the grant authority that they have. There is nothing set aside for this project in the city’s budget, so to move forward, taxpayer funds and city employee labor will need to be diverted from things that benefit the residents of Clarkston (as opposed to a few restaurants with a liquor license). Here’s a thought – why not ask all the restaurants with a liquor license to pay every penny of the difference between the grant award and all extra costs as a way to give back to the community that has given so much to them? They and their customers are the target audience, so it’s entirely appropriate they pay for this.

I’ve asked Smith to provide me with any resolutions that authorize any expenditure for this project. I’ll update this post if he can produce anything. I think it will be hard for him to do so, since this project was only discussed at the December 11^th city council meeting and there was no funding resolution before council at that time.

The Two Restaurants That Will Benefit the Most
Expressed Support for the Project
(Big Surprise, Eh?)

The Mill Street “placemaking” project will primarily benefit the restaurants on either side of it – the yet-to-be-opened restaurants owned by Esshaki and The Fed, which is owned by the Schneiders. Prior to presenting the idea to the city council, Smith emailed these two restaurant owners to solicit their support, telling them “[i]f you don’t want this, I’ll drop the idea altogether.” (Seriously?)

These two restaurant owners came through for Smith, and he included a letter from Esshaki (page 23 of the application) and an email from Sarah Schneider (page 24 of the application) fully supporting a green space in this location. Schneider elaborated on this concept and spoke of “escap[ing] from the concrete jungle” and said that “green spaces have proven to enhance mental and physical health, while promoting environmental sustainability.” Apparently, they are both unaware Smith is proposing a ton of stamped concrete, lights, bollards, planters, and benches. So much for escaping the concrete jungle, but I doubt they care – it’s a freebie designed to assist their restaurant businesses. Esshaki’s letter is dated December 12th, and Schneider’s email is time-stamped just over an hour before Smith submitted the grant application on December 13th.

I was disappointed to see a letter from Mayor Sue Wylie on page 25 of the grant application. As I noted in my previous post, she was part of the three-member committee establishing the social district that only benefited three Catallo restaurants and The Fed. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising to see that she is supportive of something the city manager expressly told us is only intended to benefit patrons of restaurants serving liquor in the social district. Mayor Wylie apparently needs to get with Smith’s program, because her letter suggests she views this “placemaking” proposal as something for the entire community, despite Smith clearly telling the council and the grant authority that residents and taxpayers are not the intended beneficiaries. Call me jaded, but I suspect Smith asked for a letter from Wylie to infer there is city council authorization to spend taxpayer dollars on this project – even though there is not.

And In Conclusion . . .

I hate to say I told you so about this “placemaking” project, but I actually did tell you so.

Personally, I think it’s wrong to misrepresent facts to anyone who offers a grant opportunity, and after reviewing the public records the city provided to me in response to my FOIA request, I believe some of that happened here. It’s unfortunate, because it’s possible that some misrepresentations might cause the loss of a specific grant. It also may discourage other private entities from offering future grant opportunities. (False statements on government grant applications can carry criminal penalties.)

If after reviewing the linked materials you are also concerned with Smith’s statements, please let your city council members know at the email addresses shown below. And, unlike Smith, I believe they will be interested in what you have to say – no matter how old (or young) you are. I also think our council members over the age of 60 will be rather surprised to learn how little their subordinate city manager values their opinions because of their age.

Sue Wylie (Mayor) WylieS@VillageofClarkston.org
Laura Rodgers (Mayor Pro Tem) RodgersL@VillageofClarkston.org
Gary Casey CaseyG@VillageofClarkston.org
Amanda Forte ForteA@VillageofClarkston.org
Mark LamphierLamphierM@VillageofClarkston.org
Ted Quisenberry QuisenberryT@VillageofClarkston.org
Peg Roth RothP@VillageofClarkston.org