Dear Editor, 

I see from the clarkstonsunshine.com summary of the February 28, 2022 city council meeting that the council is salivating at the opportunity to allow a movie producer to use Clarkston as a backdrop for a movie about someone who didn’t live or work in Clarkston and had only a distant relationship with one of the first settlers.
Absent from the council’s fawning reception of this idea was any consideration of many questions that come to mind:
How much will this cost in DPW time and services to accommodate the movie’s use of city property, including closing streets?
Will the moviemaker reimburse the city for the additional costs, or will the taxpayers be subsidizing another profit-making business because the council thinks that’s a good thing (especially since the mayor and council members will get to play parts in the movie and get the opportunity for personal media publicity)?
How much will this cost the Oakland County Sheriff’s office to accommodate closing streets and other additional required security?
Will the moviemaker reimburse the sheriff’s department?
Why was there no consideration of the inconvenience to city residents that will be caused by again blocking off streets for the convenience and use of a private business?
Why did they mention closing Church Street again? Was it because giving away the street for months for the Honcho tent was such a resounding success for the city, notwithstanding the lack of any payment to the city and the inconvenience to the surrounding residents?
Why is there not even the slightest consideration of whether it is appropriate to give away access to city property and services to a private business without compensation to the taxpayers who pay for that property and those services?
Why isn’t our council asking these questions?

Sincerely,
Richard Bisio
Clarkston