Comments on: Leveling the Field for Small Farms

By: duane

duane — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:56:04 +0000

Jack and John,

No matter what was or wasn’t said (or meant)during the campaign to get the Greenbelt ordinance passed, the only thing that matters now is the law as it is written.

If the recommendations of the GAC do not seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the enabling ordinance, then the GAC should be asked to explain how their actions relate to the ordinance. They (and the Council) have to comply with the law as written or a court can make them do so.

We all have to understand the ordinance which provides the rules for the Greenbelt. It is the arbiter of the disputes of all the parties
involved in the Greenbelt.

By: John Q.

John Q. — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:15:12 +0000

“And all this selective memory of what supporters said at the time of the millage vote–increased city density, land purchases close and within the city, open and transparent accounting of funds, etc.”

Followed by your selective use of the facts? The city has increased density, land has been purchased in the city and within close proximity to the city and the use of the funds has been open and transparent. But of course you can’t provide any examples that would counter those points, just accusations.

By: Jack F.

Jack F. — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:32:24 +0000

John Q. I was here and voted for it. Big mistake. If I had only known how our dollars were going to be used. And all this selective memory of what supporters said at the time of the millage vote–increased city density, land purchases close and within the city, open and transparent accounting of funds, etc. Socialism of arugula production with tax dollars was not one of the bullet points used at the time. The Art Urinal, the Greenbelt, the tear down the Argo Dam Crowd, the no bid recylcing contract all seem to share the same core of supporters that end up on committee appointed by the Mayor after political donations.

By: John Q.

John Q. — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:28:12 +0000

Jack,

As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Were you even here when the Greenbelt proposal was approved? From your comments, I don’t think so.

“Ms. Hall knows this…how?”

Protecting local farms and a local food supply was one of the selling points of the original proposal.

“For a GREENBELT tax paid by A2 taxpayers? Of course we wouldn’t want GREENBELT near the city…”

A percentage of the greenbelt millage is intended to purchase open space and parkland inside the city limits. That accomplishes the purpose of providing open space in close proximity to the city by acquiring open space where taxpayers live inside the city limits. The remainder of the millage is intended for the acquisition of development rights on farmland. In some cases, it’s been used to acquire open space. But the primary intent wasn’t to purchase open space for the sake of having open space around the city.

By: duane

duane — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:35:12 +0000

A review of the Greenbelt enabling ordinance, the “Open Space and Parkland Preservation Ordinance” of the City of Ann Arbor.(Ord. No. 17-04, § 1, 5-3-04) provides:
——————-
3:61. Purpose and findings
The purpose of this chapter is to preserve and protect open space, natural habitats, parkland and the City’s source waters inside and outside the City limits for benefit of residents of the City of Ann Arbor and in cooperation with the greater Ann Arbor community.

3:68. Greenbelt district land; criteria for selection.

(3) Land acquisition criteria. Sites for consideration shall be evaluated using the criteria listed below together with any other criterion determined by GAC to be appropriate to accomplishing the purpose of this Ordinance.
————————
That is, land shall be selected by the GAC by applying applicable criteria for the benefit of residents of the City of Ann Arbor.

Judging from commissioner comments, a review of how Greenbelt purchases are expected to benefit the residents of Ann Arbor seems appropriate.

By: Jack F

Jack F — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:01:27 +0000

“One question brought up by Gil Omenn during the discussion of open space criteria was why such a low point value was given for land that had proximity to Ann Arbor – two points are awarded to land located within a mile of Ann Arbor city limits.”

So this wasn’t considered very important originally when the point system was created? For a GREENBELT tax paid by A2 taxpayers? Of course we wouldn’t want GREENBELT near the city…

By: Jack F

Jack F — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:52:20 +0000

“Another reason, unrelated to a farm’s size, is that any farm producing food that’s sold locally is important to taxpayers who are funding the greenbelt program, Hall said. People who live in Ann Arbor and voted to pay taxes for the greenbelt did that, in part, because they felt that some of what they were preserving would come back to them, in terms of food they could consume. “That’s an important linkage to make,” she said.”

Ms. Hall knows this…how?