An Exit Strategy for Dearborn Councilman Thomas?
Councilman Doug Thomas
So Dearborn Councilman Doug Thomas wants to “keep ’em guessing” on whether he decides to run for mayor or for his current city council seat. At least that’s what he told the Dearborn Press and Guide in its April 29 edition on why he pulled petitions for both positions.
Thomas has until 4 p.m. on May 15 to make a decision, the deadline for candidates to decide.
From where we sit, our guess is that it appears Thomas is setting up his exit strategy from Dearborn politics altogether.
In recent years, Mr. Thomas has had a poor attendance record as a councilman. So much so that the Dearborn Democrats club at a meeting in August 2007 discussed a recall effort because of it. The councilman was spending more time at his Florida home than he was at his elected job in Dearborn or his home here, which he has been trying to sell.
Let’s face facts. Running for mayor against sitting Dearborn Mayor John B. O’Reilly, Jr., is a non-starter. O’Reilly likely will be mayor until he decides not to. He is just that strong.
So why might Mr. Thomas be considering such a run? Is it a way to go out with a bang, running for the top job in City Hall even though a loss is inevitable? We think it might be. He was elected to his fifth term as a Dearborn councilman in November 2005 and running for a sixth term won’t be a cakewalk.
There could be as many as 26 people running for seven council seats this election. If Dearborn voters head to the polls this November with the mindset that major change is needed in our city, no sitting councilmember will have it easy.
This should be interesting race to watch.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:32 am
I agree with your assessment of O’Reilly’s strength with voters, even though it hasn’t been tested in an extended one-on-one race. If voters decide major change is needed in our city, though, why would only sitting councilmembers not have it easy?
May 4th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Isn’t there a residency requirement? Councilman Thomas lives in my neighborhood but is seldom seen and has not even joined the neighborhood association. His house has been for sale for over two years at an unrealistic price. His actions on council reflect a similar unwillingness to accept reality and move forward.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Maybe Steve Dobkowski (sp?) will move into Doug’s Dearborn house, thereby killing two birds with one stone. Does anyone know what address Dobkowski used when pulling his petitions?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I walk my dog past thomas’ house every night- nobody lives there- he should be ousted and sued for the income-
May 4th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
What an arrogant pig! Not one incumbant should be re-elected. Although they all are not totally responsable for what the city has become, they do have some accountability. With the exception of Darany, all have had minimum of two terms to do something positive and all we have to show for is paid parking, parking decks, vacant buildings, and the popular “I wasn’t close the ex-mayor so i didn’t know what was going on”! Elect new polititions through out, although the whole list is full of trough feeders and let them figure out how to lie and undeservingly reward themself for the next four years. Do not re-elect!
May 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Thomas souldn’t even file the pititions he pulled. He cares about as much for Dearborn as KK did for detroit.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Thomas has been telling some of his closest friends (of which I am one), he wants to give Dearborn a one finger salute, and especially to Big Jack, and this will be his way of bidding adieu to the Dearbornites in general.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Doug’s always been there for the everyday average person, He listens to what your concerns are, and tells you the way it is. I only wish he would improve his attendance more at the council meetings, and it sure wouldn’t hurt if some of the other ones wouldn’t show up, at least he knows whats going on at the meetings and is still informative of the issues. Maybe it is time for Doug to divorce himself from the City, thats for him to decide to run, and for you to decide to vote for him.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Why would Thomas waste the campaign dollars on either position? The time has come, in fact, for Doug Thomas to OFFICIALLY bid his “one finger salute” to Dearborn and exit stage left. Doug has actually been bidding adieu to Dearborn politics and his constituents over the past 10 years. He slips in and out of Dearborn time and again to satisfy the mandated rule by the City Charter of a 90 day absence policy. He’s a trickster whose best days are behind him.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:37 am
He lives within the North Dearborn Park Civic Association. Can anyone from that association verify if he is a member?
May 6th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Membership in the Dearborn Park Neighborhood Association is listed in the Winter Newsletter which can be veiwed at http://WWW.dearbornparkna.com.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I grew up on Cherry Hill. According to Mr. Thomas, however, it was the “wrong side” (the even numbers). Since he lived south of Cherry Hill, he was better than we were. I played softball on a team that he coached and he even favored the kids that lived south of Cherry Hill over those of us that didn’t. He’s always seemed to have an attitude that Dearborn owed him something and we should be extremely grateful for anything he gave back.
As far as I’m concerned, he can stay south of Cherry Hill – and south of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia, too.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
This is America…
I do not read this blog often, but this post was forwarded to me, and it is of great interest to me. I guess my first question is this: Why, Said, would you seek to impede a democratic process? Is this posting your own opinion (cause you always say “we”), have you surveyed Dearborn residents (if so, who?), and or is it a view emanating from the powers that be?
According to the election laws, anyone who garners the signatures can run for mayor, and if Doug Thomas meets the minimum requirements to run, then he should be allowed to run. If his candidacy turns out to be sham, then I guess the residents of Dearborn will figure that out.
From my experience, I know Doug Thomas is concerned with Dearborn, and has wavered on whether or not to stay and fight for the city, or just leave. His heart is in the right place, and he has no hidden agendas that I know of. Said, if you recall, he is the only council person that voted against the 2 parking structures and the entire BK development, which has been a disaster for the city. He is the only one who voted against paid parking. He is one of two who voted against the city’s purchase of the Montgomery Ward building from Talal Chahine, which many have speculated could have obtained for much less.
Does that mean he is the best person to be mayor? Not necessarily. Jack O’Reilly has unbelievable passion and is very qualified to be the mayor of Dearborn. But there are many questions that need to be answered. Maybe having an experienced Dearborn politician like Doug Thomas running against him will help the residents of Dearborn get some answers to some important questions. If Mayor O’Reilly answers these questions to the satisfaction of Dearborn residents, then he will and should remain mayor.
Why are the heads of departments under FBI investigation still employed by the city? Why did Mayor O’Reilly keep the same administration as his predecessor Guido when they had questionable practices, he campaigned against corruption, he was Guido’s political rival, and mayors usually bring in their own people?
This city has traditionally had a strong mayor who has made unilateral decisions about roads, lights, construction, developments, etc. Other cities have successfully used trained professionals (like city managers) and consultants to help them achieve their goals. Dearborn has been micromanaged at times, to its detriment. Qualified people with strong backgrounds should be implementing a master plan, coming up with long-term visions for the city, and so on.
My recent conversations concerning his candidacy with Doug Thomas have led me to believe that he would be a mayor who would bring in fresh, qualified people to tackle the problems our city faces, get his people to give him substantiated honest feedback, and not micromanage the city. Special interest groups and backdoor deals would not dominate his administration as it has administrations before. He was cordial enough to give me a meeting, even though we have had a contentious relationship. And it is not secret that I also have a rocky relationship with the current mayor. That being said, I have respect for both men, and believe Doug Thomas knows where the bodies are buried and can ask the right questions. And if Mayor O’Reilly can answer them honestly and well, then maybe he can mayor as long as he wants. If he cannot, then maybe we have a choice.
As an aside, Doug Thomas did not pull his own petition for mayor. It was pulled by a concerned group of people who are trying to convince him to run. I am not sure he has made a final decision yet.
These are real questions in Dearborn that need to be answered. Simply disqualifying Doug Thomas from the get-go is not going to help us get to the bottom of any real issues. Everyone deserves a voice, and perhaps having Thomas in the mix will spark some sort of lively debate on important issues. And if Mayor O’Reilly can win those debates, he surely deserves to be mayor. But it highly irresponsible, and harmful to the interests of Dearborn, to simply dismiss him wholesale.
Signed,
Hakim Fakhoury
May 8th, 2009 at 8:13 am
By the lastest list of people whom pulled petitions to run for Mayor I’d say Doug has good qualifications to run, even though I like Doug I still don’t think he can Beat Jack.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Hakim has made some great points and Pat I think that you are right but, Doug can give the mayor a run for his money. Might even give some people a reason to get out and vote.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I am puzzled by the strong opposition to of Doug Thomas. Over the years, he has proven himself to be truly concerned with the hot button issues that concern the taxpayers and voters. And, he has not enriched himself at the expense of taxpayers.
Perhaps that is the problem. He doesn’t owe anyone anything.
Thanks to Hakim Fakhoury for his letter.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
A LOUD AND PROUD “THANK YOU” TO MR. FAKHOURY FOR HIS WELL VERSED AND IDEALISTIC OVERVIEW OF WHAT COULD COME. I HAVE LONG RESPECTED HIM AND HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH HIM IN THE PAST.
This recent posting of Mr. Fakhoury’s speaks to who he is. He is not the arch-enemy as many portray him to be. Mr. Fakhoury cares about this city as much as any other red-blooded Dearbornite does.
May 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
No one is against Doug. It’s just that Doug is done. He is an absentee councilman. Look at his attendance in the last few years. Tell me that is someone who cares about Dearborn, missing more meetings than any other member. He may have been the “watch dog”, but he is out of touch. The only reason he is running is to go out with a bang and have fun stirring things up, which is all he has done on council. He can say he gave it his best, blah, blah, blah after he goes down in defeat but that it is now time to turn in his cape because the voters have spoken. As for Hakim’s note, you need to review your facts. Doug did indeed support paid parking (as you did, too) and only later when it was approved and saw people upset about it said it should be removed, (same as Hakim). Please don’t try to rewrite history.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
All organizations need people who serve one or more roles in their daily operation. Obviously, you need some who set policy and direction for the organization, others who handle the daily functions. There is always a need for new ideas, a need for critical analysis (“watchdogs”), a need for difficult decision-making and good people to bring their talents in these areas. This applies to government as well as business.
Within our city government, we rely on the Council members to function primarily as the “watchdogs” a check and balance for the Mayor’s office. But we also ask them to be “idea” people – OUR idea people, the conduit to carry our voices and opinions to the City’s administration. But it seems that Mr. Thomas sees himself exclusively in the watchdog role, ignoring the City’s need for new ideas. In fairness, I’m sure Councilman Thomas has brought several proposals to the table during his tenure, but the only one I recall related to designating city parks for “residents only” – which brought down the wrath of the court system on the City. Thanks a lot.
And realistically, if you consider the primary functions of our council members, the watchdog role is a piece of cake. Any of us could attend meetings and object to new ideas for one reason or another. It’s the ideas that are tough to generate. I find it aggravating that a few of our Council members have lamented the need for “fresh ideas” and people to bring them forth; of course they exempt themselves from that obligation. If that isn’t the height of hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.
I carefully read Mr. Fakhoury’s comments and take a few exceptions to his comments (though please note that I still applaud his – and everyones – contributions). First of all, I think this web site is about a lively exchange of ideas on the topics affecting our City. It is at its best when we are sharing our thoughts, opinions, and concepts; I don’t think that Mr. Deep should be prohibited from throwing in his two cents worth just because he administrates this forum. And Mr. Deep did not suggest impeding the democratic process or chastise any candidate for considering an election run; he merely questioned why Mr. Thomas would consider either the Mayoral or Council race given his recent attendance record.
Second, I’m bothered by Mr. Fakhoury insinuating that the Mayor is somehow delinquent for not dismissing city employees who are being investigated. While I am not a great fan of the Mayor, this just seems like a situation where the investigative process – which is not in the hands of the City – should be allowed to reach conclusion (or perhaps just prosecution) before the City takes personnel action. After all, have we not seen enough examples of city employees winning actions against the city? We would all be livid if someone won a wrongful termination suit (with the taxpayers footing the bill).
And as an aside, I think the Mayor is one of those “idea” people noted above. I don’t neccesarily agree with all of them (the public service days, for example) but he does seem to be willing to consider all options for improvement.
Third, while I am sure that the City has been micromanaged at times, that is the form of Government that we its’ citizens have decided to endorse. We elect various officials, we delegate authority to them, and we hold them responsible for outcomes. I wonder if Mr. Fakhoury’s comments stem from past difficulties he has had with the City; I understand that the development process can be maddening at times but right now, I’ll take the City’s track record over Mr. Fakhoury’s.
I agree with KC in saying that “no one is against Doug” – that is on a personal level. But the taxpayers of this City deserve the most knowledgeable, the most imaginative, the most dedicated people who care to run for office. And THAT is why some people are against Doug (and some others on council).
We as a community place great value on incumbency. I don’t think we are unique in this regard; most incumbents across the country get re-elected. We also place a great value on legacy and permanence. How many times do we read about a candidate whose primary qualification is being a “lifelong Dearborn resident”? We allow people to hide behind those three words, ignoring glaring shortcomings and lack of ideas. Well, perhaps it is time for us as an electorate to reconsider our value system. We need to critically look at the candidates and what talents they truly bring to the table. It would be a sad day if we make shallow decisions about candidates (such as casting our votes based upon family history) and allow our elected bodies to become laughingstocks (a la Detroit).
May 10th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Does anyone have statistics regarding the absenteeism rates of Dearborn City Council members? I would bet Doug Thomas has sharp competition for missing council meetings from Suzanne Sareini and Tom Tafelski.
May 10th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I know that Suzanne was involved in a very serious automobile accident that required surgery and a lot of therapy don’t know about Tom T.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I thought I would address a couple of the things posted after my post.
First, it should be noted that Doug Thomas was against paid parking from the very beginning. I am not re-writing history. These facts are memorialized. I witnessed him at a court hearing supporting an injunction that would have resulted in paid parking never making the ballot to the voters. Of course, that attempt failed, and paid parking was passed by the voters.
And I was one of the main supporters of paid parking in the beginning, and am now against it, as implemented. Let me tell you why.
The parking decks that were part of the Burton Katzman development were originally meant just to serve that development. In other words, increased tax revenues from a hotel between the decks would have paid down the bond for them. When that development did not reach use expectations, the Guido administration at the time decided that the cost to pay down the decks would have to be included in a Special Assessment District (SAD).
Mark Guido called me personally and told me there were two options:
1) SAD charges which would have resulted in prohibitive costs to commercial tenants and/or property owners.
2) Support a paid parking system that would pay down the decks, and no heightened charges.
So I publicly supported paid parking because I didn’t think it was right that my tenants pay for parking decks that only serve Burton Katzman. I could not afford much higher SADs, and if I passed it on to tenants, it would have been impossible for anyone to do business in downtown Dearborn.
However, the city has grossly misled me on the whole project. The parking decks are NOT being paid down by revenue from the parking system. They are instead being paid down by the West Dearborn DDA and the General Fund of the City. No one knows for sure where the parking revenues are going, but they are definitely not going to pay down the parking decks. NOT ONE CENT FROM PAID PARKING REVENUES GO TO PAY DOWN THE BOND PAYMENT ON THE DECKS. I was misled. This was confirmed to me in DDA meetings by the Mayor and Jim O’Connor, the city’s Finance Director. They city has misled people about the parking project and that is why it so upside-down.
Downtown areas have paid parking. It is not unusual. But the city has not managed it correctly. The hours for enforcement are not customary, and there is gross over-enforcement. I have personally witnessed parking enforcement officers patrolling the lot at 11:55 (five minutes before enforcement ends) just to find expired meters to ticket them at the last minute. Only Dearborn extends their parking enforcement hours to 12:00 AM (it used to be 2:00 AM). Birmingham & Royal Oak stop enforcing at 9 PM, and Ann Arbor, Michigan’s most successful downtown, stops enforcing at 6 PM! Enforcing parking late into the evening hurts businesses like bars and restaurants, where customers will stay for hours on end. When customers have to worry about getting a ticket, they cannot freely walk from bar to bar (which is common), and they cannot just have a good time. When they go out to check their meter, they either just leave or come back in a bad mood. Dearborn is behind the times in enforcing parking and is doing things with their enforcement hours that no other downtown in Michigan does. Enforcement should end at 6 PM to help businesses and create more traffic in the downtown.
Other downtowns in Michigan (which are more successful than Dearborn’s) have more customer-friendly policies than Dearborn.
– In Birmingham’s city-owned attended lots, the first 2 hours are free. In Dearborn, only the first 30 minutes are free.
– In Ann Arbor, enforcement at meters end at 6pm, and attended lots continue enforcement. In Dearborn, meter enforcement continues until midnight. This makes it much more likely that people will get tickets. In an attended lots, at least there is no possibility of getting a ticket
So Dearborn has mis-managed this, and the no one knows for sure where all the money is going. So, while I was for paid parking when first introduced, I am against the way it is currently being managed, enforced, and directed. I was convinced into supporting it with the threat of a higher SAD. But the city has mishandled the whole enterprise. And now Dearborn is seen as a downtown where the parking situation stinks, and where customer fear getting a ticket when they’re trying to have a good time, instead of a vibrant place with great places to enjoy an evening with your family and friends.
These are some of the issues than can be brought up in a lively mayoral race. If Jack answers them well, then he should be mayor once again. If not, maybe there will be some alternatives.
Signed,
Hakim Fakhoury
May 12th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I hate to say this but most businesses and taxpayers got exactly what they wanted paid parking. I don’t see people lined up at the council meeting demanding to know where the money from the parking meters, garages and lot is going. I think that you are 100% right on what you are saying but we have to face the fact – most people in Dearborn don’t really care!
May 12th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
My son and his wife went downtown to eat at Cheli’s. When they came out, several meters had expired, their’s included. They not only had to pay for parking but a parking ticket as well. That was last summer and the last time they ate at any Dearborn restaurants. They liked not having to drive far to find good restaurants and bars but, now they drove to Royal Oak.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’ll guess that the money is going to:
1. Wages for enforcement
2. Cost of maintainance of meters and lots.
3. PARK-RITE a shady parking co. that the city of Detroit also deals with.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Donna, while I’m sure some groups got what they wanted at the time with paid parking, I don’t recall everyone being pleased with the prospect prior to it’s implementation. I understand how downtown business owners, hoping to level the competitive playing field, thought that getting out from under the special assessment district would be a big step forward. Unfortunately they (and everyone else) underestimated the strong resistance the public has to feeding meters; downtown visitors were never in favor of changing the system. But, true to form, our ego-centric city government once again misread the sentiments of the people and figured that everyone would love to pay for parking just to have the privilege of visiting Dearborn.
I really believe that the City used the downtown merchants group as an unknowing ally for this concept in order to get the support that the City so desperately needed. By making all parking paid, they could rationalize the presence (as well as the cost) of the 2 new parking decks. Surely people would much prefer to park in the deck, safe from the elements, right? Alas, there are too many people like Lillian’s family who are frustrated by the parking system and simply choose to go elsewhere (that is, somewhere with free parking).
Oh, and contrary to what Mr. Fakhouy recently posted, it was always my impression that the decks would be open to the public, not exclusively for the development (hotel, office, farm market, dog kennel) that was planned. Between them the decks have around 660 spaces. That’s a lot of parking for that small of a site.
Regarding the revenues from the parking, I’m not a conspiracy theorist like some others. I suspect the paltry receipts from the parking is going into the general fund. I also suspect that a significant amount of those revenues goes to pay salaries for booth attendants, traffic enforcement personnel (along with new pickups for them to drive), and deck maintenance. I’d love to see a comprehensive accounting of the revenues and costs for this system, though I doubt we ever will. There are 2 possibilities why the City has not been trumpeting this information: first, the dough is just rolling in and the City doesn’t want alert the taxpayers; second the system is losing money, so the City is susidizing the operation and doesn’t want to alert the taxpayers.
Seems like a recurring theme.