First in a series of articles about the proposed “open space” millage, set for a November vote.

For opponents of November’s open-space millage proposal, it’s not the principle, it’s the money.
‘Our issue is pure and simple ? in difficult economical times, it is fundamentally wrong to ask our neighbors to pay for this additional expense,” said Henry Woloson, who with Michael Powell represents ‘Citizens Against Taxes to Buy Vacant Land.?
Woloson and Powell met Aug. 26 to discuss why they are against the ballot proposal.
Woloson said Independence Township homeowners already pay taxes for Detroit Zoo, Independence Township government and parks and recreation, Clarkston Community Schools, fire department, library, safety paths, Oakland County government, sheriff, and parks and recreation, Oakland Community College, Oakland Intermediate School District and Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority.
Michael Powell, leader of the group, said he is all for paying taxes, but is against paying ‘unfair taxes.?
‘Along with Henry, I believe there are other routes that can be taken to preserve property,? he said ‘To come to the tax payer every time, is always the easiest route, I don’t agree with that one bit.?
Also, the proposal would specifically benefit North Oakland Headwaters Land Conservancy, he said.
‘We have never had a taxpayer funded initiative that benefits a single non-profit,? said Woloson. ‘Not Rotary, not SCAMP, not any other non-profit has tax dollars specifically referenced in the millage to benefit that entity.?
Powell and Woloson said other avenues of purchasing land should be pursued. Other avenues include township purchase of vacant land through the Master Plan, as well as private purchase through the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.
Township officials can also fill out a Recreation Grant Application, Michigan DNR.
Both Powell and Woloson say the proposal is misleading.
‘I think this is not a 10-year millage. This is a millage of in perpetuity because it has the operative word maintenance,? said Woloson. ‘I have a problem with this misrepresenting the 10-year nature of the project.?
An example is Bay Court township park, which used to have a life guard on duty, but due to cost, the township ‘lacks the money? to keep it up, he said.
‘If we lack the money under current situations and we’re now going to acquire $7.5 million of additional property over a 10-year period, what is to say we’re going to be in any better position to maintain the property,? he asked. ‘We should be honest with voters ? you’re not looking at a 10-year millage. You’re looking at a longer one.?
Powell said the proposal’s provision ‘for open space and active recreation? is misleading.
‘If this does pass, expect to see me at every meeting ? any piece of property that’s being put up for consideration to be paid or bought with that money is going to be made into a park,? he said.
Powell noted taxpayers would also pay salaries of personnel recording, maintaining and patrolling vacant land purchased.
‘This current proposal with all of its wording flaws, all its ambiguities, and the non discussion of maintenance, I can’t support and I am actively going to oppose,? said Woloson.
‘With the current proposal, given the current economy, given the foreclosure rate, given everything else that exists for us to be looking at that and taking on that kind of indebtedness I think in improper.?