Library Lot

Great. And so begins our project to spend approximately $100,000 per new parking space!

Yes, as regional population drops, ZipCar enrollment and go!pass use rise, new-car sales tank post-”cash for clunkers”, new park-and-ride lot opens, AATA struggles with various issues, rail options approach from the horizon, bicycling and walking seem to be increasing (do we even know?), downtown development stalls, technology for online meetings and telecommuting advances, Willow Run airport dissolves, parking demand peaks (again, do we even know?), world oil production begins its inevitable decline, and climate change advances.

Steve, your otherwise excellent list left out how our city budget is tanking and we are now indebted for 30 years to build this edifice while cutting our police force at the same time that crime is rising. Shoo! said all that in one breath.

I know I am new and not a member of the club here but I have been reading along for a long time. Vivienne I have to ask, are you and others of your dedicated group going to keep running for office the year around? You continue to bring up issues that have been talked about for so long and you still fail to put them in context with what is occurring in the rest of Michigan and the nation.

Please look around our state. Isn’t the county in worse shape than the city? The state budget is a total disaster. What major city’s budget is not feeling the pain?

I happen to disagree with your camp on this and several issues. As Sabra Briere wrote here some time back, the city has lost and will be losing 100′s of parking spaces. I believe we need parking if we want downtown to thrive. We cannot afford to lose spaces and not replace them. If you think everyone is going to ride the bus or a bike you are naive or living in la-la land.

The new parking structure and courts and police building have been needed for a long time and so many of you with your secure incomes don’t understand the contribution construction jobs are making to the local economy. My neighbor who is working on the courts project says it is allowing his family to keep their house, many others community members are in the same boat. One of the big differences that is keeping a2 ahead of other cities is the UM and city construction providing hundreds and hundreds of good jos.

And your premise is wrong. From everything I have been able to learn the police station and the parking structure are not impacting the operating budget of the city. Many like to point at them and say they do but that is not correct. So the fact that these buildings will go up (or down in the case of the parking garage) has nothing to do with the police budget.

A2 is a safe place and anyone who thinks having more police would stop break-in’s needs to study the issue more. The AAPD is a strong force and they will catch the thieves.

Gale- I completely agree with you. The parking downtown is needed for the vitality of the city and as you said people are living in la-la land if they think people will bus downtown to go to dinner or to shop when they could easily drive to the mall. It is a dream. This argument linking pollution and crime to the expense of the library lot is old and tiresome.

If people are genuinely interested in decreasing pollution and want to decrease the number of people who drive, they need to concentrate on commuters, specifically commuters who typically drive to the UM , who could take the bus but who choose to drive. The downtown area does not have the number of commuters that the UM has. Why not concentrate your efforts on something that might have a real outcome?

So, if people really want to decrease pollution fix the bus system so people who live in the city and work at UM have an efficient bus system. Our current hub and spoke system is so inefficient that it is not worth their time to take it.

As for how building this parking structure affects the city operating budget, it plainly DOES NOT. It has been explained and discussed ad nauseam. Many of use understand this concept. I am sorry that some of you do not understand or refuse to understand this concept and repeatedly try to tie every issue (pollution, crime, politics etc.) to downtown parking for your own political gain.

What information is being presented indicating that there is a parking crisis? I know when several of us looked into real-time parking data, we found that there was parking availability throughout the city. Perhaps a small garage would be filled (like 4th and Washington), but others less than 3 blocks away would be very open.

We checked this data for quite some time and found that one thing was constant — there was always a place to park.

Yes, new projects do mean money flowing into the local economy, especially for the building trades. But the question of how those are being funded is legitimately debatable. Money is fungible and when removed from one fund or revenue flow, others are affected. In the case of the police courts building, the general fund balance took a major hit and we are now seeing increases in fees and loss of services (including police positions). I haven’t had the time recently to do a close examination of how the finances are shaking out, but the general principle is this: there is no free lunch. Everything has a cost. As for the parking structure, it is allegedly going to be paid for by parking fees, but that rests on a whole chain of assumptions. And it isn’t about parking for the downtown, it is about developing the surface lot. Some small group of people made the decision that development of that lot was a priority. (See news stories about the conference center and the RFP.)

Just because I don’t agree with your assessment doesn’t mean that I am ignorant (or deaf – I hear you shouting). And I don’t accept the notion that because the county or state is even worse off, we should accept poor decisions within our city that affect our long-term financial viability and quality of life for residents.

That’s just it Vivienne there haven’t been any wrong decisions on these major issues. Just like your contention that “some small group of people made the decision” I just checked and the vote on council was 10 to 1 and I think there was only one DDA member who voted against it (guess who!). That’s not a small group!

The DDA had been asking for a new structure going all the way back to the three site plan, years ago and years ago Bob Johnson and others on council (I was there that night) said the parking should be underground.

As for not considering the fact that the whole state is struggling well, that is just stubborn. A2 has had to go through repeated cuts from the state and they just lost 5% of their property tax revenue with the UM take over of the Pfizer property and property values are going down. Those seem like good reasons for the problems to me.

Just to clarify, I meant that a limited circle of people made the decision without a meaningful public involvement.

Isn’t all of this a question of horizon?

One segment of this debate seems to see the present vividly. They see the variables in play now and assume that they continue. The certainty and tangibility of these “facts” give a strong base for logical arguments and invite judgmental positions (e.g., “fairness”).

The other faction sees the future. They work with possibilities-the “facts” of the future. They argue for providing for the possibility and in doing so they increase the odds that that future will come to be. For example, having 500 or so more parking places laying around increases the odds that a large employer will choose Ann Arbor as the site for a new office.

However, I’m also sensitive to current needs and present conditions. After all, like everyone else I live in the present and you’ve got to muddle through that to get to the future.

Both positions have merit. I guess it boils down to belief. If you believe that Ann Arbor is where its going to be in the future, you should join the near term camp. If you believe that Ann Arbor could be a great beyond its current position, the you should be in the future camp.

I’m in the future camp. It seems to me that greatness was never achieved by focusing on today. We celebrate “visionaries” for good reason. I’m not one of them but I sense their presence. If you’re one of those guys, keep it up. But remember, you’ve got to get through today to get to tomorrow.

Amen, Mr Salton

It’s not quite that simple, Gary. Visions of the future are more varied — at least mine is different from most members of city council and the DDA board, particularly on parking demand and what would constitute a forward-looking approach to that and related issues like public transit.

Specifically, the majority of downtown decision-makers seem to see the future as an extension of the past in which we have an opportunity to ‘do it better’ this time around. I see the future from this

Oops. Must’ve hit Return. To continue…

I see the future from this plateau of world oil production as a very different situation than what we’ve all lived through the past decades/century. To plan for the next 50 years (the possible lifetime of the proposed structure) as if this were 1980 is hard for me to characterize. I don’t understand it and I haven’t been able to get others to see the differences. I had hoped that proactive consideration of the coming decline in cheap, abundant energy supplies was possible. That window is now almost closed. We’ll likely have to learn the expensive way.

Steve,

You make my point. You see the current situation as continuing on. Oil is short now, it will always be short. And there will be nothing invented to replace it. Electric cars are only a probability, not a fact. Individual transportation is doomed.

Public transport-a well known current option,i.e., a “fact”-is the place to put our resources. People will have no choice but to use it. After all, individual transport is doomed.

I see it differently. A firm like Google could absorb 1000 parking places at the drop of a hat. Having some places available takes one site location issue off the plate.

On the other hand,trying to convince a firm like Google that public transport is the equivalent for 1000 employees (day and night, all kinds of weather, holidays, etc,) is less than a compelling selling point.

Personally, I’d vote for the parking places and bet that it will help make Ann Arbor attractive enough to lure in more major employers. Then I’d use the tax revenue generated by their presence to fund the world that you see. After all, there is a probability that you are right too. The positions aren’t mutually exclusive.

There is a tremendous, well funded effort underway by the US Govt., the auto industry and other nations to develop the next generation of personal automobiles and batteries to power them.

I am sure from the majority of his posts that Steve in not a Luddite but he sometimes sound like one. Peak Oil may be a reality but people will still be driving personal vehicles 50 years from now. They may be powered by the wind, sun or the atom but they will be everywhere.

I agree with Gary that we must be building for the future but I also put stock in the post above that quotes Council Member Briere on the need for the new structure to replace 100′s of spaces the city has lost and will be losing in the next few years.

As others have said, the city could have all the transit in the world and many will and do use it but many others will not. It would be a mistake not to replace the parking that will be lost.

The lawsuit brought by Mr.(and Mrs. Hall) and his one person environmental law group is ridiculous and will be thrown out as soon as it goes before a judge.

There are certainly some vocal members of the community that want no building, no progress, nothing that would bring new jobs or people to the city. It is hard to understand this in the state with the most depressed economy in the nation. I can only attribute it to the fact that these individuals have a secure income and just don’t care about the needs of others for economic development to provide new and better jobs.

Incidentally, I don’t put Mr. Bean in this category.

Gary, if I wrote something that proves your point, you might reference it rather than attempting to put words in my mouth. That approach, along with your erecting of straw men, doesn’t make for much of a discussion.

“is the place to put our resources”

Nowhere is “the” place to put our resources. I’ve never claimed such a narrow approach (or that people will stop driving or that we won’t need parking or that everyone can/should/must ride the bus.) Such all-our-eggs-in-one-basket approaches and false dichotomies aren’t helpful. On the other hand, continuing to increase our investment in a diverse range of alternatives (in addition to less expensive investments in parking like on 5th and Division, which I supported, and on Main Street in front of Ashley Mews, which I suggested to support the retail businesses there) in preparation for less abundant and more expensive fuels only seems wise.

“Oil is short now”

Oil is more abundant now than at any point in history. By abundant, I’m referring to the amount extracted, not the amount left in the ground. That’s what the term peak oil refers to. If you don’t know much about the concept I suggest that you go to the Oil Drum web site (http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/overview ) to learn more. Furthermore, demand is low now due to the state of the economy. If and when the economy begins to pick up and oil does become “short”, due to increased demand, the price can only rise. See why I say that peak oil equals peak parking?

My understanding is that Google didn’t use all of the 400 or so spaces originally set aside for them. Care to share the specifics of what you know about their desire for 1000 spaces? Keep in mind also that we tried that tax revenue thing with Pfizer, even offering them a tax abatement (against my objection at the time.) When Google leaves (or when it becomes clear that they won’t be employing any more people than currently), we’ll be glad we didn’t waste our resources on a big, non-local corporation. But that’s another subject.

This discussion has generated at least two major discussion threads:

1. Need for parking downtown and its likely effects vis-a-vis downtown businesses; vs. the use of public transport
2. How we view the future and how that view affects decisions we make today.

Regarding #1: When Sabra Briere said that we would be losing parking spaces, she indicated that we would shut down Fourth and William and the Maynard structure. This was apparently based on the age of those structures. But the DDA only recently added a floor to Fourth and William, and the Maynard structure is an integral part of the State Street area and heavily used. It was also renovated recently by the DDA. I don’t know of specific information regarding their likely lifetimes, but I personally doubt they will be coming down soon.

I did a lengthy analysis of Google and the business/publicly funded parking issue on my blog earlier this year. Among other findings, I referenced an article on AnnArbor.com (August 2) that indicates that Google (local) has hired only 250 people, has undergone management changes, and refuses to discuss future hiring plans. That is with a city cost of $2 million a year to pay for their parking.

I share Steve’s frustration with the blithe dismissal of the transit to downtown concept. This has been discussed at length over the last several years and we have invested much in studies on it. There has been a pretty good public consensus that commuting into downtown (to work) by car is not the best option at many levels. We have a whole program (getDowntown) devoted to making the transit solution work. It is difficult to encompass all the effort and all the discussion on this subject in a comment thread. I’d suggest that some of the comments on this subject are not well researched and encourage you to look at the past discussions. (Sorry, I haven’t figured out how to do links on comments or I’d reference a couple.)

I’ll deal with the future – later.

Vivienne, you are being very selective in your use of data and left out most of the parking that has or will be lost.

The city has lost or will soon lose 700 spaces downtown plus the two older structures you mention are old and won’t last forever.

From information I obtained from my council member many months ago and reading here, the major reasons new parking is needed are the loss of (170) street spaces that has already occurred over time, the demolition of the 1st and Washington structure (net 150+? I don’t know the exact number),turning the 1st and William surface lot into a park in the next few years, (120?) the expected loss of the Brown Block (180? spaces)when 1st & Martin builds on it (they notified the city of this some time back).

I fully agree with others that the new parking structure is needed to replace what has been lost and what will be lost. But new parking is needed to keep downtown vibrant.

You also say the city is paying 2 million for the Google parking, that was if Google used 400 spaces and as you note they are not. (But don’t ever miss an opportunity to dig at the city. Stick to the party line.) They are only paying for what Google is using, less than 2 million.

I don’t see how anyone can be surprised Google has not hired more in this economy. And like Google I don’t see how anyone can expect an up-and-coming company to locate downtown if there is no new parking in the pipeline when the townships will gladly allow surface lots.

David has it right, unless Obama and the transportation people around him are wrong. There will be a new generation of vehicles and people will be driving for a long time to come. There will also be trains and I for one can’t wait.

A positive thinker would say the city needs to simultaneously continue the current effort toward more transit and increase the parking downtown for when the economy picks up.

Steve–
You are absolutely correct. I was not writing an academic paper so I chose to be a little loose in my characterizations of your viewpoint. It makes things easier to read and -I still believe–captured the essence of your position. Current facts rather than future facts (i.e., possibilities)drive the logic of your argument.

Obviously, we differ on the weight that should be given to each of these factors (present vs future facts). Neither of us right or wrong. But the choice will lead to very a different future for Ann Arbor.

Gale–You last paragraph says it all. Both efforts merit pursuit. But, I would point out that luring major employers to town would generate tax revenues. In fact, even more shoppers would result in tax revenue in addition to the parking revenue itself.

Public transportation initiatives can be expected to be break-even at best. Nobody anywhere makes money on it (a current fact?). Seems to me that a bit more focus should be given to the parking. At least it stands a chance of putting money in the city coffers. Investing in break even ventures seems less than wise.

Thanks for the list of parking places that may be lost. The First and Washington lot is already being used for surface parking after the old one was demolished. It is exclusively by permit and I was not able to find the number of current spaces on the DDA website, but those should be subtracted from the number lost with demolition. In addition, if the financing ever comes through,the development that is approved for that location includes some public parking. I’m not sure how the numbers shake out and it would require a lot of looking up, but I’m pretty sure that if there is any net loss of spaces when all is said and done, it will be relatively minimal. The DDA originally set up the RFP to replace all the lost public spaces.

The Brown Block has no scheduled projects and given the current state of things, is not likely to in the future. (I’m basing this in part on an interview I did about 3 years ago, when the market was hotter, but nothing contemplated then.) Yes, they have a lease with the city that can be abrogated when a development is scheduled, but no need to hold your breath.

I gather that the First and William spaces will be lost once the city receives funding for environmental amelioration so that it can be made into a park. I’m not holding my breath on that one either. Wonder whether an application has been made yet?

I don’t know anything about the lost street spaces, though as Steve mentioned, new ones are being added.

All this points to the need for a good accounting of spaces. The Nelson-Nygaard study likely has one buried in its report appendixes. Speculation about when all those parking spaces will actually be lost depends on—the future.

With regard to the cost of the Google spaces, you (Gale Logan) are correct that the cost to the city will vary depending on how many spaces Google is actually using. The number promised (free) by the city was 400. Since there were no new spaces to accommodate this, the city committed to pay the DDA the amount that a permit holder would have paid for existing spaces. McKinley made part of the spaces they have reserved at the Liberty Square available. However, when I did my research for the May blog entry, I was told by the DDA that they are unable to specify how many of those are actually being used by Google. I didn’t bother to try to penetrate the depths of the city’s financial accounting to get an instantaneously accurate figure.

Here is, however, how it got budgeted (June 2007 memo from Tom Crawford):

“The present value of estimated costs to pay for parking for up to 400 spaces monthly through December 2010 is $2,039,017.
…
City Administration recommends amendment of the current adopted FY07 budget to provide for a transfer of $2,180,000 from the General Fund to the new Economic Development Fund and amendment of adopted FY08 budget to appropriate $600,000 in the Economic Development Funds, in order to cover the next fiscal year’s maximum obligation for the Google parking agreement.”

Assuming that this took place, the city did indeed commit $2 million (transferred from the General Fund!) for the Google parking permits. (This does not cover the cost of replacing those spaces, lost to other business users; maybe McKinley had enough leeway to take care of that.)

Regarding tax revenues to be generated by new employment or development downtown: could someone please explain how that would work? Since local governments don’t collect sales tax, we don’t have a city income tax, and increased property values (if they come) result in taxes captured by the DDA (which are being recycled into further development), how does the city government gain revenue?

And I was wrong in my earlier comment – the city’s cost for the Google parking was not $2 million a year, but rather till December 2010. Sorry, fastest keyboard in the West.

Gary, your comments on my present vs. future “facts” interpretation are lost on me. It seems to me that my perspective on the future is more (not wholly) influenced by considerations of energy supplies, ecology, and social equity, whereas yours is more (not wholly?) focused on economics. I’ll leave it at that.

The only parking that clearly has the potential for generating excess revenue (beyond paying for the operation and maintenance of the parking system) is that which already exists. New parking will take decades (four or more) to pay off construction and related costs and must do so at high usage levels. The current system stands a chance of breaking even in coming years. The cost of this new structure at a time after the peak in downtown parking demand could jeopardize that potential. Then what do we do? Remove (more) spaces? Raise the rates (and thus decrease demand)?

By the way, anyone know what the fixed-price bid for the new structure came in at?

As for new vehicles, check out the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles that the Clinton administration pumped a ton of public money into for next to no public benefit. I read recently that current average mpg is no higher than when the first cars were made a century ago. And, of course, Ivan Illich calculated that American car drivers get the equivalent of less than 5 mph. My prediction is that the vehicle of the future will be powered by carbohydrates and will move us at higher net speeds than that. :-)

Steve

Sorry about the “fact” ambiguity. I work in human information processing and may overuse my perspective.

I want to stress that I am not criticizing your logic. It is as legitimate as is mine. Our divergence centers on the input we are willing to accept as relevant.

I believe that you put reliance on “hard facts.” Then you analytically extend those facts into the future to arrive at your position. This positions you to make compelling, fact based arguments. And your logic works as long as nothing unexpected intervenes. This is the kind of thinking process that is favored in the hard sciences. Not a bad provenience.

I, on the other hand, accept more nebulous possibilities as legitimate input. For example, I know of no large employer looking to relocate to Ann Arbor. But I believe that they are out there somewhere. I’m willing to bet that if we make it easy for them to relocate, the likelihood is that one or more of them will. It’s kind of a “if you build it, they will come” strategy.

The “future facts” element centers on the outcome of our divergent perspectives. In pursuing your position you will create an environment that favors certain kinds of activity and discourages others.

For example, it is likely that your posture will create a nice local world. Pollution is lowered and congestion is eased. Your “hard data” position makes that future reasonably predictable.

My more probabilistic (some might say wishful) position carries less certainty on what those “future facts” will be. But it broadens the range of possibilities. That “someone” who might relocate to Ann Arbor could be a new Microsoft or Procter and Gamble. If that were to happen the well-being of Ann Arbor and the State of Michigan could be positively influenced in a big way (at least if you value employment opportunities).

To me, the relatively certain but modest benefits that your position offers are less valuable than the uncertain but potentially high value opportunities of my position. I believe that Ann Arbor is a jewel that can attract the kind of firms that can change the world. My strategy creates the “future facts” that increase the odds that we’ll stumble on such a firm.

You are likely to assign lower odds that my strategy will work than I will. My input “facts” are uncertain, ill defined and “squishy.” But that is what makes a “ball game.” Let’s play!

PS: I’m speculating about your evaluative processes based on your comments. I could be wrong. The only way to tell is to measure them. But that is a bit out of range for a “Reader’s Comment” exchange.

Thanks, Gary. That was helpful clarification. I don’t disagree that Ann Arbor is attractive. I just think that we should have a broader discussion about how to accommodate what is attracted than the simplistic “we need more parking” claims.

At a minimum, if one believes that we need more parking to attract some larger company, where will those extra spaces come from if the library lot structure (approx. 462 net new spaces) is presumably being built to replace spaces that will be lost elsewhere? I’d really welcome a forthright explanation of the thinking rather than the circular and incomplete rationalizations I’ve been hearing for a couple years.

Steve

Thanks of your note. I agree and would also welcome an overall strategy focused on a defined objective. It could help sort out our divergent positions.

Right now I suspect our objective is to stay alive. Not a lot to be inspired by.