Comments on: Column: Tilting at Billboards

By: Rick Cronn

Rick Cronn — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:39:45 +0000

I agree with much of what Jack Eaton says on this and other issues, but disagree that the local population caused its removal. The way I saw it was that the primary opposition to the halo came from alumni who voiced their objection to it by refusing to make charitable donations to the institution.

I will never forget the comments made by Robert Venturi or one of his people who came to town to see the stadium before the halo, that the City of Ann Arbor was the “backyard” of the University.

We’re nobody’s backyard, yet the UM continues to think so.

By: Douglas Smith

Douglas Smith — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:42:51 +0000

Where were these sentiments when the AA city council and the Washtenaw County Board of Supervisors made their resolutions to repeal the Michigan Self Defense Act? That was just a useless.

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 20:00:40 +0000

The article notes “[If the council really wants to tilt at windmills, the city could have a literal one soon enough.]” in regards to the wind turbine planned for Pioneer High School. At an Airport Advisory Committee meeting in September, someone reported to the group that the Michigan DOT had declined he City’s request for approval of the windmill at Pioneer High School. As I understood, the tower would be too tall.

With regard to the Council’s consideration of the resolution informing the University of the Council’s dislike of the billboard, I think this is the appropriate manner to accomplish such communication. As a trusted community voice recently told me, the City Council communicates through its resolutions. No one Council member, or group of Council members can purport to communicate on behalf of the Council. The Council as a whole can only speak through resolutions that have majority support.

While it is unlikely that the University of Michigan will remove the billboard merely because the City Council expresses its opinion on the subject, expressing that opinion could well be part of a broader campaign. The University wants community support. Our dislike of the sign and the opinions expressed by alumni may eventually result in its removal. This is what happened to the ugly “halo” and hopefully what will happen with this feature, too.

By: Keith Jefferies

Keith Jefferies — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:47:58 +0000

The stadium is discrete, attractive and so easy to miss. Like Dave Cahill’s legal assertion, above. Who cares about the sign?

By: Fred Zimmerman

Fred Zimmerman — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:53:03 +0000

community "viewshed" is an interesting term that gives me mixed feelings. on the one hand, it is admirable as an attempt to describe a real albeit intangible value. on the other hand, it is also rather annoyingly transparent as an attempt to appropriate some of the legal and moral authority of the term "watershed." Do we need to start talking about property owners' "propertyrightsshed"? ;-) [link] Also, I note that the standard dictionary definition regard it as a singular term. I think the community viewshed is actually the integral of all viewsheds in the community.

By: Fred Zimmerman

Fred Zimmerman — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:39:25 +0000

This is an embarrassing and idiotic waste of time by City Council. I live in the neighborhood and drive by the sign every day. It doesn’t bother me at all.

By: Tom Brandt

Tom Brandt — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:36:44 +0000

I never even noticed the thing until this controversy blew up. It is just part of the visual clutter that is Stadium Blvd.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 21:49:16 +0000

The University put up a sign that, as you say, “flagrantly flouts the city council’s sign ordinance.” The City has asked the U to please remove the sign. I see nothing wrong with that. Asking forces the University to either refuse or ignore the request, making their arrogance explicit and obvious. If we don’t ask, they might assume we don’t care that they broke the law.

And the sign doesn’t just violate the new sign ordinance, it violates the original ordinance, the one the rest of us have had to obey since the 1960s.

By: John Q.

John Q. — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 21:47:07 +0000

Ugly and unnecessary. I agree with the conclusion that the University’s not going to remove the billboard. But it would be foolish for the city to bless this billboard by seeking to gain some kind of “public benefit” from it. That’s the same approach that the commercial billboards have taken in other communities and all that guarantees is that these eyesores never go away. Hopefully, the alums will see this eyesore for what it is and ask for its departure. They appear to be the only ones with any ability to reign in the bad intentions of the University administrators.

By: Dave Cahill

Dave Cahill — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:54:52 +0000

It is unwise for the Council to make the legal conclusion that the Big U is “without any obligation to comply with the ordinances of the city of Ann Arbor” . Such a statement may bind the City into the future on other matters.

I am unwilling to accept this legal conclusion in any event.