48 Rumors

"Rumors are like the leaves in fall,
an attention-getting brief entrance
but they are destined to rot on the ground."

-M. D. MACGREGOR, A Trail of Envy

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
- Heard from one of the Saugatuck government officials in his remarks at
the June 20, 2012 Boundary Commission hearing.

Fact: While there are certainly many wonderful "unbroken" aspects to life here in Saugatuck and Douglas, the existence of two local governments--with all the duplication and wasteful expense, conservatively estimated to be in excess of $500,000 every year--is definitely not among them. Two redundant complements of municipal-overhead employees serving just 2,157 citizens is a "broken" government. It also helps explain why we have no coordinated economic development plan, no plan for enhancing healthcare services in our community, no single vision for our future. Fixing our government organization is key to our community's success in the years to come.

If consolidation were to happen, all existing zoning regulations would immediately become null and void. Until new zoning was agreed to, we would effectively have no zoning in place whatsoever.
- A version of this rumor was included in a Saugatuck official's comments to
the Boundary Commission

Fact: State law dictates that current zoning would remain in effect until changed by the new government unit. Any such changes would be subject to the same sort of citizen discussion and review as is currently in place. Any competent government official ought to know this.

The entire consolidation process is being driven by outsiders like the CGC and the state Boundary Commission. The CGC has "far-reaching powers." The Boundary Commission can order any new boundaries it wants. It's out of control!

Fact: As shown elsewhere on this site, the CGC is anything but "outsiders." We live here, and we have no more power than any other group of citizens. And the State Boundary Commission is simply doing what it's supposed to do. In the end, regardless of the Boundary Commission's recommendation, no consolidation will take place until 51% of those voting on the inevitable referendum in each jurisdiction approve. Nothing is "out of control," except perhaps the rhetoric and hyperbole of some of those opposing consolidation.

It's not cost-effective to consolidate the governments of the two cities.
- This rumor was also repeated by local government officials at the
Boundary Commission hearing.

Fact: We know for sure that Douglas and Saugatuck residents are paying double what comparable communities are (on a per-capita basis) for "city manager" services. Reducing that to just one city manager would save $75,000 every year. The two most recent studies put minimum annual cost-savings at $500,000, but the GCG expects the number to be even higher depending on operating efficiencies, possibly approaching $1 million. Remember, these savings will occur every year.

We'll lose city services like leaf pickup.

Fact: City services--including police, fire, sewer & water, library and interurban which are already "consolidated"-- will not change. In fact, no city-service cuts are included in the cost-savings projections. Leaf pickup will continue as it is now.

We'll lose our post office and the library if consolidation goes through.

Fact: Post Office decisions are made by the USPS. The library and its funding will not change.

It will cost a fortune to create a new government. We can't afford that!

- Local government officials stated this a number of times at the Boundary Commission hearing.

Fact: Yes, it will cost money to form a new government unit, but likely far less than we're currently wasting every year by having two governments. What's more, Michigan's Economic Vitality Incentive Program, PA63, 2011, (EVIP) makes very substantial funds available to local communities specifically to defray consolidation expenses. How substantial? Onekama Township and Village recently earned a $355,000 EVIP grant to aid their consolidation. And according to Onekama's 2010 F-65 filings with the Michigan Treasury Department as shown at AccessMyGov.com, their total population--2,111--is nearly identical to Saugatuck and Douglas.

Hyperbole has been a consistent part of this rumor. For example, opponents have frequently alleged that creating a new city charter would be a daunting and wildly expensive legal undertaking. Not so. To the right are excerpts from the current two cities' respective charters. Notice anything? Except for the name of the city, they are in fact identical. To be sure, there are some different sections, but there are also quite a few other virtually identical sections. So when someone tells you how difficult it's going to be to write a new city charter, it's fair to respond, "A good part of the work's already done!"

Our communities will lose their local flavors and identities.

Fact: Did either Saugatuck or Douglas lose their identity when they chose not to have two separate fire departments? Or two separate police departments? Or two different historical societies? Or two separate libraries? Or two water and sewer departments? Of course not. Nobody's longing for the days when each town had its own fire trucks, however quaint that might have been. In each case, consolidating these traditional municipal functions actually improved service and saved money. In each case, one was better than two, so the citizens all gained.

Communities get their local flavor and identities from their people, their geography, their churches, their businesses, and their attractions, not from their governments. Consolidation will change none of that. What consolidation will change is the inherent inefficiency in having two governments with duplicated "headquarters" functions (as well as two completely equipped public works functions) and the expense of all that for a total of just 2,100 residents.

Our property taxes won't go down.

Fact: While two recent studies conservatively projected the minimum cost-savings from consolidation at $500,000 per year, what will be done with these savings will be up to the citizens. Property-tax reduction, investment in infrastructure, or some combination of the two will all be candidates for any re-directed savings. If all the savings were to be returned to the taxpayers, the property-tax reduction would be significant.

Plante Moran cannot be trusted. They're in bed with the CGC and will slant any opinion and analysis to suit the pro-consolidation people.

Fact: Plante Moran is a large, respected accounting practice known throughout the Midwest and indeed, worldwide. Why would they risk their reputation by fudging on an analysis for our small community? The fact is, a number of Michigan local governments and school districts are already Plante Moran clients, as you can see in the video below. The firm's work on consolidation cost-savings has been conducted in accordance with the highest professional standards. What's more, the Plante Moran studies were vetted by former Douglas Mayor Pro Tem, Paul Marineau, who was treasurer of the group opposing consolidation at the time. (He has since joined the CBC.)

The CGC is unnecessarily rushing things. They should just wait until the Boundary Commission issues its recommendation before undertaking studies of potential savings.

Fact: Once the State of Michigan's Director of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (DLARA) signs a consolidation order, there is a mandated maximum of only 45 days to file a referendum petition (Details here.) If the CGC waited for the DLARA order before beginning to analyze potential cost-savings, we would be denying citizens that amount of time to study and weigh the cost-savings involved. Conducting sound cost-savings studies and analyses now is the only responsible course of action. While the cities claim to have conducted their own such studies, none have been made public. Many doubt such studies even exist. (Editor's note: This turned out to be well-placed doubt as both cities finally admitted late in December that there were no such studies.)

There are real differences between Saugatuck and Douglas. The two are not the same place. We're not all alike!

Fact: There most certainly are delightful differences between Saugatuck and Douglas, and none will disappear. Indeed, our diversity is--and will remain--one of our very real strengths. Joining together to form one government will leverage all our strengths against all the challenges we share.

"...it has not been proven that there are indeed notable cost savings (from government consolidation)...."
- Published statement from a citizen group opposing consolidation in Douglas and
Saugatuck; repeated by the same group at the Boundary Commission hearing.

Fact: The only voluntary municipal-government consolidation ever in Michigan took place when the cities of Iron River and Stambaugh, and the Village of Mineral Hills combined to form one jurisdiction, The City of Iron River. Here's what Iron River recently had to say about their cost-savings: "... it is estimated that the 'new' City of Iron River is experiencing an average saving of $1,350,000 annually." Where'd the savings come from? Quoting the Iron River website: (Listed first)"Combined all city offices thereby eliminating duplication including council members, managers, clerks, treasurers, office support staff, assessor, and legal counsel." Details here.

"The CGC's financial studies have not been vetted."
- Published claim by a leader of a citizen's group opposing consolidation

Fact: The two most recent cost-savings studies conducted by Plante Moran for the CGC had the benefit of close cooperation and consultation with former Douglas Mayor Pro Tem, Paul Marineau, who is both an attorney and an accountant. The individual quoted above was fully aware of this vetting since Marineau happened at the time to be treasurer for the group opposing consolidation! There is absolutely no question both studies were conducted under the highest of professional standards, and fairly present the minimum cost-savings from consolidating the two governments into one. Finally, these two studies on consolidation cost-savings are the only ones ever published by any group.

"...the CGC (is) trying to shove the consolidation down all our throats at the clear opposition of the citizens...."
- Published letter to the editor

Fact: The CGC is interested in Douglas and Saugatuck citizens finally being able to vote on the form of their own government. Construing this as "shov(ing) consolidation down all our throats" is disingenuous sophistry, and adds nothing to responsible debate. As to citizen opposition to consolidation, the only survey ever conducted among Douglas and Saugatuck residents (by Mitchell & Associates in 2010) on this subject showed 74% support for consolidation.

The CGC is a tool of the McClendon people.
- An implication to this effect was part of a citizen's public comments during the
June 20th Boundary Commission hearing.

Fact: Absolutely false, particularly mean-spirited, and intentionally misleading. See the full set of facts here.

The Iron River case is flawed because before consolidation up there, the governments were going bankrupt, so consolidation was a popular solution.

Fact: The Iron River consolidation in 2000 was achieved in spite of strong opposition. Each of the cities involved had distinct ethnic populations dating back to iron-mining heydays. A five-city consolidation was proposed, but in the end, only three voted the requisite 51% in favor of consolidation. Consolidation has grown dramatically in popularity since first enacted, to the point that today, virtually every citizen of Iron River surveyed believes it has worked out for the best.

"(Douglas) residents will be forced to pay down roughly $4 million of (Saugatuck's) debts" if consolidation passes.
- Statement to the Boundary Commission by a leader of the group opposing consolidation

Fact: This is fear-mongering based on twisted facts. The speaker was referencing road improvements funded by indebtedness approved by Saugatuck voters. Such indebtedness can be segregated to remain the responsibility of the taxpayers who benefitted from it, in this case, the Saugatuck residents. Knowingly making false statements like this rumor, designed to mislead, does a real disservice to residents who want to make an informed decision on the merits of consolidation. (Continuing to do so is unconscionable.)

The cost savings from the Iron River consolidation come from consolidating things "we have (already) identified and done."
- Statements to the Boundary Commission by a leader of the group opposing
consolidation; and reiterated by the then mayor of Saugatuck

Fact: Here from the City of Iron River document is what they cite first as contributing to their impressive cost-savings: "Combined all city offices thereby eliminating duplication including council members, managers, clerks, treasurers, office support staff, assessor, and legal counsel." (Emphasis added.) Such savings will only be realized in Douglas and Saugatuck if consolidation takes place. Until then, the duplicated costs amounting to $500,000 per year will go down the drain.

"Saugatuck and Douglas citizens already enjoy very efficient government."

Fact: On a per-capita basis, our citizens are paying more than twice as much for their current two-government system
versus comparably sized Michigan communities. Only someone whose job depends on keeping this cost-heavy, two-of-
everything system in place would ever describe it as "efficient."

Our government officials have conducted extensive studies on consolidation and those studies show it won't work and will increase costs.
- Statements made by these officials during the Boundary Commission hearing.

Fact: No such studies have ever been made public, and many believe it's because they don't exist. The CGC has repeatedly called for any of these studies to be made available. There has been no response from our elected officials. (Editor's note: A response finally came in late December, 2012 when both cities finally admitted pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act inquiry, that no such studies were ever done. The statement of the government officials at the Boundary Commission hearing was simply not the truth.)

What is public knowledge is that both local governments refused to participate in a joint effort to analyze cost savings resulting from consolidation (an effort they had originally agreed to with the CGC). The CGC, on the other hand, at its expense, has conducted two cost-savings studies with the help of the respected accounting firm, Plante Moran. These studies are posted here.

The consolidation cost-savings estimates keep changing! First, it's over a million, then it's $700,000. Now the CGC says $500,000. How can we trust such wild variations?
- Former Saugatuck mayor's comments at the State Boundary Commission hearing.

Fact: These cost-savings estimates were thoughtfully arrived at based on different assumptions. The highest number was developed when the Township was still being recommended for consolidation. The $700,000 number included projected savings in service departments like public works. To avoid debating any service cuts, two Plante Moran studies arrived at the $500,000 figure as an absolute minimum estimate based solely on eliminating redundant municipal overhead. As to "trust," a better question might be: How can we continue to rely on a system of government that's wasting a half-million of our tax dollars... every year?!?

Hey, we didn't need consolidation to form the Joint Planning Commission which now regularly brings together representatives from all three jurisdictions. It's really working quite well.

Fact: Not true. The Joint Planning Commission is effectively not functioning at all. And it hasn't for the past fourteen months. Virtually nothing got done in all that time because not enough commission members came to the meetings. Among its extremely important agenda items, this commission is responsible for updating the Tri-Community Plan. That update is now more than two years late. So, while it might not have taken consolidation to form this commission, it appears it will take consolidation... to make it work.

All our local government officials are dead-set against consolidation, and they always have been.

Fact: False. John Porzondek, a former Saugatuck councilman, is in favor of consolidation, and he courageously told the Boundary Commission so in writing: "...I see this 'reorganization' as a healthy step in the right direction that will both 'clean house' and bring to the forefront a truer vision of a larger community...." What's more, several other current Saugatuck city council members were in favor of studying consolidation when they endorsed the McKenna Associates study back in 2002. "There are good reasons to support such a solution (consolidation)," said the report they signed off on.

"This consolidation cannot be done without a government buy-in."
- Written statement to the State Boundary Commission by the Mayor
of Saugatuck.

Fact: The mayor's statement is simply not true. Local governments have no legal power to obstruct citizen efforts promoting consolidation. If the voters approve consolidation in a referendum, it becomes law. Whether a current mayor (or any other bureaucrat) agrees or not-- or has "bought in"--is entirely irrelevant. To suggest otherwise is yet another indication* that certain of our elected officials have a very exaggerated opinion of their personal power, and apparently are not averse to pushing the ethical limits to retain it. (*Other examples here.)

Our local governments are already right-sized.

Fact: According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the average local government in the country serves 7,724 citizens and is responsible for an area of 90.6 square miles. For our approximately 2,100 citizens living in an area of about 3.5 square miles, we have not one, but two municipal governments... and all the expense and duplication that goes with this double-government model. How can anyone seriously suggest our current double-government is right-sized?

Many of our elected officials oppose consolidation because they know what's best for us.

Fact: In an opinion survey conducted in 2010 by the Michigan-based Mitchell & Associates Research, 72% of Douglas and
Saugatuck residents polled agreed with the statement: "Many elected officials may oppose (consolidation) because this
would jeopardize their jobs."

Consolidation will result in bigger government.
- Public statements and testimony before the State Boundary Commission

Fact: That anyone can repeat this rumor with a straight face is remarkable. The two Plante Moran analyses projected that a single government unit would operate at a cost to the taxpayers $500,000 less than the current two-government setup. Roughly $75,000 of that savings comes from paying only one city manager, not two. Having “two of everything,” as the current system does, is bigger government. And worse, it’s less efficient government.

"If consolidation passes, we'll have to build a new city hall, and that's going to cost a fortune!"

Fact: Not true. Either of the two current city halls could easily accommodate the consolidated government. Or both
facilities could be sold, and more convenient, far less expensive, already available space could be used. Similarly, only one
public works garage and maintenance facility would be needed, so duplicated facilities and equipment could be sold off.
What really does "cost a fortune" is the current two-of-everything system serving a total of just 2,100 residents.

"There is a lack of voter support for consolidation."
- Written statement to the State Boundary Commission by the current Saugatuck
Mayor Pro Tem

Fact: If this were really true, why then were so many local government bureaucrats so dead-set against allowing a consolidation referendum to take place? What are they afraid of? There is only one way to know for sure whether Saugatuck and Douglas citizens will choose the many and obvious efficiencies of a consolidated government... and that's to allow them to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Now that the Boundary Commission has endorsed consolidation, our citizens will finally get their rightful chance to vote on the form of their government. Consolidation opponents tried again and again to keep a referendum from ever happening. In almost every instance, their strategy has focused on causing folks to fear any change at all. From its inception, the CGC has campaigned to give voters the right to choose the form of their government. We are proud to have marshaled a strong, fact-based case for the voters' right to choose.

Support for consolidation is really limited to just one local pressure group.

Fact: The most recent event debunking this rumor was the October 5, 2012 formal written endorsement of Saugatuck-Douglas local-government consolidation by the West Michigan Policy Forum. The full text of this endorsement by a highly respected regional forum with hundreds of members is available on the "Endorsements" link in this website.

We've uncovered email messages from CGC people to the SBC! This proves the Consolidated Government Committee engaged in collusion with the State Boundary Commission!! That's the real reason the SBC ordered consolidation.

Fact: The desperation behind this particularly nutty rumor is just amazing. Of course there are email messages between the CGC and the SBC. The CGC is the formal petitioner before the commission. What's more, anyone is free to send an email to the SBC.

The "overwhelming response of people at the public hearing against consolidation" proves it shouldn't move forward.
- Claim repeatedly made by group opposing consolidation

Fact: First, the vast majority of the people at that meeting back in June were Saugatuck Township residents. (The Township is no longer part of the consolidation proposal, so this opposition is moot.) They were also the vast majority of those expressing an opinion on consolidation. Second, if the opposing group is so certain they're in the majority, why have they fought so desperately to keep consolidation from reaching the voters? The only research on public support for consolidation was a phone poll conducted by Mitchell Research back in 2010 found 74% support in the two cities. One might call that "overwhelming."

"There is absolutely no evidence that becoming consolidated would increase the success of saving the harbor."
- Statement published by a group opposing consolidation

Fact: Here's some evidence: All or part of the $500,000 per year minimum government cost-savings under a consolidated city would be available for harbor maintenance. Under the current two-of-everything, two-cities approach, not a cent of that savings will be realized. A half-million dollars of potential incremental investment ought to increase the odds of success in saving the harbor.

We've already consolidated so many services (expenses), there can't possibly be any more savings.
- Published interview with Matt Balmer, leader of a group opposing consolidation

Fact: A classic example of using truth to support a false premise. As Mr. Balmer admits, consolidating definitely saved money already. But then oddly, he says no more savings are possible. He doesn't say why. Perhaps because it's pretty elementary that in the very same way consolidating services like police and fire saved taxpayers big money in the past, the expenses not already consolidated (duplicated city-managers, as an example, at about $100,000 apiece, salary and benefits) will produce more savings. As Mr. Balmer knows, the minimum projected annual savings from consolidating the now-duplicated municipal overheard will be $500,000 per year, every year. He knows this because the former treasurer of Mr. Balmer's organization arrived at this savings projection in consultation with Plante Moran.

"A merger might cost more money because the cities would have to draw up a new charter and work through other legal and operational issues." -From a published interview with the leader of a group opposing consolidation

Fact: Annual cost-savings from consolidation have been reliably established at a minimum of $500,000... per year! Costs
related to creating a charter and other one-time organizational needs are likely far below that number. What's more, the
state's EVIP funds dedicated to underwriting costs for making government more efficient (a primary goal of consolidation),
would be available to defray--or eliminate--the charter-writing legal expense. Finally, many provisions of the current
Douglas city charter are identical to Saugatuck's, so these would remain unchanged.

From the website of the group opposing consolidation:

Fact: The group's assertion is complete fiction. The Consolidated Government Committee never issued a press release on the Haworth decision to close their Douglas plant or ever "... claim that Haworth Corporation is closing it's (sic) Douglas plant because the two cities are not consolidated." Once again, the irresponsible rumor-creators have chosen to make something up, and then try and pin it on the folks supporting consolidation. The CGC believes the consolidation discussion in our community is too important to deal in unsavory, made-up smears, and outright lies. Those who deal in such disrespectful tactics should be ashamed of themselves.

- Update, January 17, 2013: The above article (green text) has been removed from the opposing group's website without explanation or apology.

- Second update, January 28, 2013: This "minor correction" appears on the opposing group's "new website."

The letter to the editor referenced, however, did not in fact "essentially claim the Haworth plant was closing due to a lack of consolidation." What was stated was that Haworth and others faced the challenge of a "lack of a unified economic-development team in our community...." which is a factual statement. No cause-and-effect was posited. Here is the full text of the letter to the editor:

We really love our post office people! (Implying consolidation will somehow result in the post office service changes.)
- A local city council member with a new version of an old rumor

Fact: We all love our post office people who do a great job and render caring, personal service every single day. Consolidation has nothing whatsoever to do with the post offices. When the cities of Iron River and Stambaugh, Michigan consolidated thirteen years ago, each city had its own post office. Today, there is just the one consolidated city with both post offices still in operation. Post-office decisions are federal government matters. Implying that consolidation will affect the post offices is just one more example of fear-mongering.

See if you can spot the two post offices operating today in the consolidated City of Iron River. (Hint: There's one on each side of the river.)

Consolidation really will result in bigger government. Here's my proof: 2,000 people in a consolidated city versus 1,000 in each city if not consolidated.
- A local city council member with a new version of an old rumor

Fact: The number of people in a city is its population, not the size of its government. When the City of Saugatuck Douglas is consolidated, the result will be a single, more efficient city with a larger population, but definitely a smaller government.

State Boundary Commissioner, Cameron Priebe, voted against consolidation. He said he’s interested in representative government, and that in Saugatuck and Douglas, we already have many services consolidated, so there isn’t much room left for improvement.

Fact: Cameron Priebe was the only SBC commissioner to vote against consolidation of The City of Saugatuck Douglas. The vote was 4-1 in favor. His opposition represented a fairly dramatic flip-flop from what he'd expressed in the SBC's April 11th legal sufficiency hearing. Back then, the record shows "Commissioner Priebe stated that consolidating a smaller area (the two cities only with the township excluded) makes sense to him...." What's more, Priebe's professed “interest in representative government” apparently did not extend to allowing our citizens to choose the form and character of their government by way of the referendum that the other commissioners’ votes set the stage for.

On top of all that, Commissioner Priebe appears to embrace the bizarre argument that has been a fixture of consolidation opponents' reasoning for some time. He suggests that while we have definitely saved money and improved services to citizens by already consolidating police, fire, water and sewer, library, historical society and more, in his view, there really isn’t “much room left for improvement.” Seriously? What about two duplicated public works departments? What about two city councils? What about two city managers? What about all the administrative expense that’s duplicated? What about two city halls? Apparently, the commissioner doesn’t find the projected $500,000 in minimum annual cost-savings from eliminating one entire municipal headquarters to be “much.” We think he's wrong, and so, apparently, did his fellow commissioners.

We’ll probably need more staff to run a consolidated city.

Fact: There will be the same 2,100 citizens after consolidation, as before. Why would it take more staff to provide the same services to the same number of residents?

The simple answer is: It won't.

The group opposing consolidation has received no donations from business corporations. That should tell you something.

Fact: The rumor may be true, but the implication is not particularly apt. If the many incorporated local businesses don't support your organization, it's more reasonable to conclude those businesses see the promise of consolidation. And since local business is the heart of our economy, their opinion on local government matters a great deal.

In general, business people support measures like consolidation which simplify government and reduce costs. Click here for evidence of that in West Michigan.

Consolidation can never be un-done.

Fact: We expect that consolidation will not only be embraced in a referendum, but once in place, that even citizens once opposed to it will find the benefits of consolidation far outweigh any difficulties. That's precisely what happened in Iron River where, five years after consolidating, it was difficult to find a single citizen who didn't think consolidation had worked out for the best. But as to not being able to be un-done, that's not true. The term for such a move is "disincorporation" as the leader of the current opposition group knows quite well, since he was directly involved in such an action when The Village of Douglas moved to become a city. (Apparently, after publishing their "no do-overs" position, the consolidation opponents looked at the law and determined--as pointed out here--that there actually is a procedure that could be followed in the highly unlikely event voters wanted to "disincorporate." Oddly, after supplying the details of how a "do-over" can be accomplished, the opponents still left the "no do-overs" misstatement in place elsewhere on their site. )

Consolidation will result in a new postal zip code.

Fact: No factual source is cited to support this statement. It is a variation on the "We'll lose our post office" rumor (see rumors 6 and 38), and is entirely fabricated. The most applicable case-study in this regard is again, Iron River. Before consolidation there, Iron River and Stambaugh each had a separate zip code. Thirteen years later, they still do today.

We don't need to consolidate our governments to achieve a cost savings.
- Opposing group's website

Fact: As to cost-savings, Plante Moran has identified the $500,000 per-year minimum savings that will come from consolidating two currently duplicated municipal overhead functions into one. This is the only way to realize these substantial savings, and deliver them year after year. No savings of such a magnitude have yet been reliably identified by the consolidation-opposing group. So for us to realize these savings, yes, we do need to consolidate our governments.

Probably the second-largest cost-savings opportunity--although not yet assigned a dollar amount--will come from creating one public works department instead of two. This opportunity will almost certainly receive the scrutiny it deserves during the course of the CRC independent consolidation study. Not that many years ago, when one of the two local governments proposed a "co-operative agreement" to share one such department, the other local government rejected it out of hand. So apparently, in the case of savings from public works, consolidation is necessary.

While it's gratifying that even opponents are suddenly embracing the need for finding serious cost-savings opportunities in our local government, their statement here doesn't address the primary reason for consolidation. Consolidation isn't just about a more efficient government, it's about formulating one vision for our community, a compelling strategic vision to carry Saugatuck Douglas to a successful future. Having two different visions, each supported by only half our citizens, is the civic equivalent of competing with one hand tied behind our back. And make no mistake, Saugatuck Douglas is competing... for economic development, for tourists, for jobs, for new residents, for new businesses. We need the talents and energies of all our citizens working toward the same goals to be successful in this critical competition.

"Republicans and Democrats - and their state and local government leaders broadly agree... that consolidation should stop there (at bringing individual services together), and not be pushed to the extreme in which complete jurisdictions are eliminated."

- Verbatim from the consolidation opponents' website

Fact: Read the two statements below, and then decide for yourself how factual that website's latest unsupported statement is.

Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan

Remarks to the Lansing Rotary Club, January 29, 2010

"Today, I want to talk about transforming government in Michigan to make it less costly, more efficient and more accountable. Seven years ago, there were 20 state departments – the constitutional maximum. We’ve sliced that number to 15, with more reductions to come. And we’ve eliminated nearly 300 obsolete state boards and commissions. So today I am unveiling a four-step plan that will further transform Michigan government, saving $450 million in the first year alone. The four steps are: further reducing the structural deficit; facilitating local government and school cost savings; service sharing and consolidation; enhancing accountability in state government; and improving the management of state finances." (Full text here.)

Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan

Television interview, March 21, 2011

“'Local officials deserve credit for continually finding ways to make effective use of their limited resources,' Snyder said in a speech aimed at the Legislature. However, antiquated laws often discourage (local governments) from taking broader steps such as consolidating or sharing services with neighboring communities. It is time that we view both challenges and solutions in a regional context rather than confining them to township, city and county borders,' he said."
(Full text here.)

The experts agree consolidation will never work.

Fact: As anyone who has watched political advertising over the years knows, finding an "expert" who will agree with you on just about any position on any subject isn't all that difficult. So, the real challenge is determining who is in fact an expert, and who's just some goofball looking for publicity for his latest book.

When it comes to consolidation, it's easy to spot a real expert. Real experts have real experience. They'll come from both sides of the political spectrum. They'll have been "in the game," not locked away in some obscure researcher's office. Most of all, they'll be people you've heard of! People you know and recognize.

The experts on consolidation include former Michigan governor, Jennifer Granholm, and current Michigan governor, Rick Snyder. Click here to read what they've had to say about consolidation. And from our neighboring state of Indiana, here's what Governor Mitch Daniels had to say on the subject: "... the consolidation or elimination of wasteful, confusing and unnecessary government is the key to saving tens of millions of dollars for both overburdened tax payers and hard-pressed local governments .…"

So before you go believing somebody's "experts," better take a look at their qualifications.

You're going to have to pay to have your address changed on your driver's license if consolidation passes. (As posted on the opponents' website below.)

Fact: Yet more despicable fear-mongering specially created to worry our senior citizens, and frighten them into opposing the many benefits of consolidation. To accomplish this, unscrupulous opponents of consolidation combine the truth with a bold-faced lie. The truth: Address changes to show "Saugatuck Douglas" would be necessary, and could be easily done online or by mail without leaving home. The new city clerk could be tasked to assist citizens with this remarkably simple process.

The lie: "There is a personal cost to have this done." (Editor's note; 24 February 2013: This falsehood has subsequently been deleted from the opponents' website without acknowledgment. It continues to be shown above as a demonstration of that site's "Tell a lie and see if it'll fly" approach to disseminating rumors.)

Here's the verbatim from the Michigan Secretary of State's website, including "There is no fee to change your address."

"People who spread rumors, half-truths, and outright lies to further their goals, are beneath contempt.
When they happen to be government officials, they oughta be hog-tied and run outa town."
- Anonymous