Why the Village of Milford is thankful that the legislature robbed Peter to pay Paul (and what happens when that money runs out?)

Charming Milford

Eleven thousand contaminated sites, most with no responsible party left alive to pay for a cleanup. So the state has raided another fund to pay enough to work on the riskiest of sites. It’ll last for 3, maybe 4 years. A temporary, one-time fix for a crucial program (Hmmmmm….seems I’ve heard of that happening before in Lansing.)

At least places like the Coe’s Cleaners site in the stunningly cute Village of Milford in rural Oakland County won’t be abandoned. The contamination threatens the village’s drinking water supply. Village Manager Arthur Shufflebarger says, "It's a longtime source of contamination. If that would have been discontinued, it would have been a huge concern. I'm very pleased that another source of support has been offered."

So what about when the money runs out? Or, maybe we even want to address more than a handful of these sites as a way to get Michigan’s towns and cities to attract businesses and industry on reclaimed sites of contamination (brownfields, as they’re called)?. How about a 3/8ths of a cent sales tax on the 2012 ballot to let Michigan voters decide whether to permanently fund cleanup programs?

The devil, of course, is in the details. And in the politics.

Stay tuned on this one.

###

Brooks Patterson taps taxpayers to fund fight against smoking ban: Gee thanks Brooks!

Michigan's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants takes effect May 1. But Oakland County Executive, L. Brooks Patterson, plans to use my tax dollars to go to court and stop it: http://bit.ly/bGBA7D

Here's my letter to his aides. His PR guy is Bill Mullan, who you can reach at mullanw@oakgov.com if you're inclined to let them know how you feel.

I am a 14-year resident of Oakland County. (Gerry, you may remember me from my days covering Oakland for the Freep in the late 90s?)
I have a good deal of respect for the stewardship of taxpayer money that Brooks Patterson's administration has exhibited over the years.
But this expenditure of taxpayer money to try and stall an important public health measure -- the smoking ban approved by the legislature and signed by the governor -- is unconscionable and ill advised.
I understand the "unfunded mandate" logic. But I can not recall the county ever going to court prior to this on the many unfunded mandates that have been handed down over the years. (I may be wrong, and I trust Gerry will set me straight if that's so).
I can remember the resolutions passed by the County Board in the 1990s complaining bitterly about unfunded mandates. If there were a tactical decision on choosing a legal test case, surely it would not be a popular public health measure that requires -- relative to many other mandates -- a rather limited amount of manpower and paperwork.
I understand the county, like all of us, is cutting back and trying to make ends meet.
Spending scarce taxpayer money to fight an important public health law is inconsistent with the Patterson Administration's typical fiscal prudence, and a violation of the the Executive Office's promise to look after the health and financial well being of its constituents.

Regards,
Hugh McDiarmid Jr.
Farmington