By Matt Mackinder
Clarkston News Editor

After the Independence Township Board of Trustees made known earlier this month that the Oakland County public transit millage on the upcoming Nov. 8 ballot is not beneficial to the township, their City of the Village of Clarkston neighbors took a different route.
At the Aug. 22 Clarkston City Council meeting, a resolution was defeated that would have seen the city spend as much as $2,500 to pursue litigation to not have the millage on the ballot.
“Each council member had their own reasons for voting not to pursue litigation to keep the transit resolution off the Nov. 8 ballot,” said Clarkston Mayor Eric Haven. “Reasons ranged from seeing the need for mass transit regionally, at a small dollar cost/resident, to not seeing the value of spending up to $2,500 to litigate, not yet finding an available attorney firm to litigate, and having very little time to assemble our arguments.”
“While it is our sense that the majority of the Clarkston residents will not benefit from the proposed transit program, it was decided in (last) Monday’s council meeting to not participate in the legal initiative underway to block the proposal from the ballot and, instead, allow the voters to decide in November,” added Clarkston City Manager Jonathan Smith.
In early August, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners announced a resolution to place the countywide millage on the ballot.
Should Oakland County voters approve the .95 mills for Oakland County public transportation, it will provide transportation options through SMART, the North Oakland Transportation Authority, the West Oakland Transportation Authority, and the Older Persons Commission. The millage will also provide new paratransit coverage, new micro transit areas, routes to high-demand areas, and service improvements on existing routes.
Clarkston resident and attorney Richard Bisio called the millage proposal “anti-democratic.”
“Rather than allowing the voters to decide the issue, this favors having a court take the decision away from the voters,” Bisio said. “The voters should have the opportunity to evaluate the pros and cons of the proposal and weigh the benefit against the cost, rather than have the city council and a court stop them from voting. Although I would vote against the millage, there are arguments that boosting transit funding would benefit the county’s economy, including even an indirect benefit to northern Oakland County municipalities. The counter view is that Clarkston and northern Oakland County taxpayers should not be taxed for a service that doesn’t benefit them.
“There are two sides to the question and the voters should be allowed to consider the arguments and make the decision, rather than taking the decision out of their hands.”