Comments on: Unscripted: Historic District, Immigration it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jack F Jack F Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:51:13 +0000 I think the Arizona law is racist and illegal. I’m a MEMBER of the ACLU and support their fight against it. BUT, I think Ann Arbor City Council should focus on ANN ARBOR issues first. They continue to show how rich and white and elite they are (how many people of COLOR are on council?)and spend way more time crying like babies when Sandi Smith tried to cut the Per Cent for Art tax back slightly for a couple of years but are a bit to busy and sipping wine and patting themselves on the backs for being GREEN instead of wondering if any part of their $200+ dinner at any Ann Arbor restaurant used any exploited and underpaid immigrant labor. It’s easy to vote for a feel good resolution while the Stadium Bridges are falling down. A bit harder to actually do any GOOD for the very folks they claim to support in their day-to-day Ann Arborite lives. The union bashing that the Mayor took part in during the run up to the Police and Fire cuts were pretty telling of where he was coming from. They talk pretty but when it comes to action, the are no where to be found.

By: Andrew Carvin Andrew Carvin Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:48:50 +0000 It’s easy for these people to support anti-immigation. Ann Arbor’s housing prices and taxes virtually assure that any illegal immigrants wanting to settle in the area will end up in Ypsilanti. Isn’t that how it’s always been done?

It cracks me up that the immigration law is being categorized as “racist.” It is not Arizona’s fault that the vast majority of illegal immigrants happen to be Hispanic. This has nothing to do with rates, but everything to do with inflation, crime, lack of services, declines in our schools, etc.

A formal liberal raised in Ann Arbor who has had enough

By: David David Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:22:11 +0000 “Oddly enough, no Council resolution condemning local businesses who exploit illegal workers by subjecting them to mistreatment and lower than legal wages in countless local restaurant, lawn maintenance and roofing companies”

It reminds me of the on-going radio joke in Chicago a few years ago on the day of the nationwide illegal immigration marches, demonstrations etc. In went something like “don’t expect to get a fast-food meal today or to see a lawn mowed”

By: rulieg rulieg Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:56 +0000 I had to laugh at the list of things “undocumented” people have been stopped for in A2. expired license plates? no turn signal? how DARE those evil policemen expect everyone to comply with traffic laws?

this is of a piece with the idea now in vogue that obeying the law really isn’t that important. what part of “illegal” does the A2 City Council not understand?

and I share the amusement of the poster above who points out the hypocrisy of a city council being against a state law because it conflicts with a federal law.

let’s get back to parking, ok Council?

By: Jack F. Jack F. Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:12:39 +0000 Oddly enough, no Council resolution condemning local businesses who exploit illegal workers by subjecting them to mistreatment and lower than legal wages in countless local restaurant, lawn maintenance and roofing companies.

By: Jack F. Jack F. Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:09:53 +0000 “Instead we have a lot of older “cash box” houses through use for student “slum” rentals.”

The city is filled with slum condition student housing that continually avoids any meaningful city oversight. It’s what this is all about–trying to stomp out new development of student focused housing that will complete with current slumlord owned locations. It’s not the past vs. the future–it’s the resident slum housing owners vs. new kids on the block who want to make money (nothing wrong with that) from parents who don’t want their student children living in third would housing conditions.

By: Dan Rubenstein Dan Rubenstein Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:25:47 +0000 I endorse Stephen Rapundalo and Marcia Higgins’s principled stand against the vapid anti-Arizona immigration bill resolution. Good for them!!

It is irrelevant whether or not it wastes council time or resources or whether council members feel symbolic statements are called for. Rapundalo hits close to the mark when he points out the fallacy of a city government criticizing a state immigration law on the grounds that the immigration is the purview of the federal government; if it’s the fed’s purview, let them address it.

The real issue is that I don’t vote for city council members based on their opinions on national matters. They don’t campaign on those issues and they are not being asked to represent the citizens of Ann Arbor on them. In other words, they presume to speak for Ann Arbor — to represent what Ann Arborites think — when not one voter in Ann Arbor authorized them to speak for them on this kind of issue. They are elected to represent our voices on local matters and those that directly affect (and let’s not get cute here) the citizens of Ann Arbor. As a matter of principle, they should refrain from such grandstanding primarily because it is simply not their job, the job we hired them to do.

By the way, of course the Arizona law is unconstitutional. But that is not the point. Don’t speak for us where we didn’t ask you to. This takes away our fundamental right to speak for ourselves and in doing so takes away our dignity. You are not our parents, you are not our priests, you are not the moral leaders of the community… you are elected to govern our city for us. Now, please get on with your good work. Thank you.

By: David David Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:31:12 +0000 “Without a historic district, we’d see the houses torn down, lots accumulated and “cash boxes” constructed, with the loss of the city’s neighborhood character.” Instead we have a lot of older “cash box” houses through use for student “slum” rentals.

“The Law or Unintended Consequences”. From the beginning I have believed the proposed formation of the historic district was nothing but a means stop a developer. I doubt anyone, including the residents and local history buffs, would have ever proposed making this ares into a historic district if the development proposal has not been put forward. I am amused to think that with the defeat of the proposal and other legal/political manuverings by the residents, the city could end up with the least desirable development option.

By: epac epac Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:42:08 +0000 i don’t think the links will work in my previous post, so here they are…

the original brownstone-like proposal: [link]

the monstrosity that may come to pass: [link]

By: epac epac Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:21:20 +0000 so, with all the outcries of, ‘not in my neighborhood,’ we go from an attractive project like the original proposal: to something that looks like it belongs in livonia or brighton: . Really? REALLY?!