Comments on: Greenbelt Supports Ann Arbor Twp. Deals

By: Tom Brandt

Tom Brandt — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:58:01 +0000

In fact, the city and township contributed equal amounts ($1.3 million each) to purchase the Braun property, and almost equal amounts to purchase Gould property ($230k from the twp, $269K from the city).

By: John Q.

John Q. — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:07:30 +0000

“I notice that the major beneficiary of not having a trailer park as a neighbor would be the Village of Barton Hills. Disproportionately greater benefit for disproportionately smaller contribution?”

How so? Barton Hills taxpayers contribute to Ann Arbor Township’s land preservation millage. The Township has been an active partner matching the city’s Greenbelt projects as well as funding their own PDR efforts in the Township.

By: Tom Brandt

Tom Brandt — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:18:24 +0000

Another beneficiary is the Huron River. The link is to a pdf announcing a hearing with the MDEQ for an application by the developer for a wastewater discharge permit.

By: jcp2

jcp2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:37:48 +0000

@16: I was thinking about the option option, but it only works in favor of the program if land prices rise, and works against the program if land prices fall (which I think was the assumption when the deal was first proposed). In addition, there is this long lag time between making the deal and getting matching funds. A better option would have been a financing contingency. That would work in favor of the program if land prices rise by locking in a price and if land processes fall, as the source of financing could cancel if the appraisal doesn’t work out.

@9, 10, and 11: The link to the site and description of desirable rural viewscape has been very helpful. I notice that the major beneficiary of not having a trailer park as a neighbor would be the Village of Barton Hills. Disproportionately greater benefit for disproportionately smaller contribution?

By: John Q.

John Q. — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:30:56 +0000

Alan,

Many option agreements include a “buy at this price” clause. Even if it does not include that price clause, the city still is on the hook for the cost to purchase the option to buy. If the city walks away from the deal, it loses that money. Under the current agreement, if the city walks away, it loses nothing. Explain again how your suggestion is better?

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:43:43 +0000

Thanks, Tom!

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:24:58 +0000

It would allow an option to buy land or rights but not lock the Greenbelt into a price that might be 50% or less than the actual appraised value. Of course, it the parties involved are going to say once we want something we’ll pay any price, that won’t result in any better control than we have now. But it would protect taxpayers from being locked in to a price that was two years old in an economic climate of dropping prices. But it sounds like the negotiating team for the Greenbelt aquisitions have already telegramed their lust for this parcel, will pay any price to get it and probably should avoid poker playing in Vegas…

By: Tom Brandt

Tom Brandt — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:08:02 +0000

Rod, This link shows the area. The Braun property in question runs from Whitmore Lake Road west, and north from around Stein road. The Ann Arbor Agri-Center noted on the map is a farm supply store run by the Brauns (but they may have sold it). The David Braun farm is north of Warren and east of Whitmore Lake.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:22:31 +0000

Can anyone point to exactly where the Braun parcel is? Maybe a Google maps link?

By: John Q.

John Q. — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:42:58 +0000

Alan,

Explain how an option would have worked better than the agreements the city had in place.