Comments on: Edwards Brothers Vote: Town-Gown Relations

By: Glacial Erratic

Glacial Erratic — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:10:36 +0000

Vivienne, I really value your dedication to making certain that every reader of the Chron knows your views on every issue of any kind without having to go to your own blog.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:57:53 +0000

I was pleased to see on the new Planning Commission agenda (March 18) a thoughtful resolution directing the City to work with the UM on several issues surrounding the State Street area. I hope that this can be implemented and that the UM will in fact act in partnership with the city rather than simply acting like an occupying force.

By: Fuzzbollah

Fuzzbollah — Sat, 01 Mar 2014 06:22:22 +0000

If the University of Michigan is willing to pay double+ market value for a huge parcel of land, they must want it really badly – whatever their reasons. As demonstrated by the exorbitant amount of money the U paid for Blimpy Burger, the City of Ann Arbor could likely have extracted numerous concessions from the U, such as infrastructure improvements, coverage for loss of taxes for a number of years, commitment to pay for transit improvements through the State St corridor, in return for the Edwards Bros property. Once again, certain council members are “missing the boat”, not seeing the bigger picture, have no real vision for the future, are afraid of taking small risks for potential big gains, and steering Ann Arbor in the wrong direction.

By: Larry Baird

Larry Baird — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:08:35 +0000

Dave, thanks for the clarification. I was confusing one of the largest recent real estate transactions with largest taxpayer.

Hopefully city council and city residents will continue to “attempt” to communicate with the university to incorporate at a minimum some sort of pedestrian connection between S. Main and S. State and preferably the Oakbrook street connection. The walkability of this neighborhood depends on such a connection and some sort of adherence to the master plan.

Given the amount of housing, office and retail in this area (including grocery stores – unlike downtown), one could argue this newer neighborhood could have a rather high walkability score with just a little bit more accessibility east-west.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:21:49 +0000

Mr. Baird’s point is well made, even if the complex in question is the 9th biggest rather than the largest taxpayer.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 02:26:35 +0000

Re: [8]

Larry, Lake Village is #9 on the list of largest taxpayers in the FY 2013 CAFR:

Owner                           TV         R  Precent of Tax Base
Briarwood Shopping Complex    $ 38,639,614 1  0.83%
DTE Electric Company Utility    32,786,122 2  0.70%
Campus Investors 601 Forest     30,502,800 3  0.65%
AMCAP Arborland                 29,971,966 4  0.64%
Ann Arbor Campus Housing        27,682,406 5  0.59%
HUB Eisenhower Property         27,165,184 6  0.58%
McKinley Associates             19,549,657 7  0.42%
THC Ann Arbor WP LLC Apartments 19,443,700 8  0.42%
THC Ann Arbor LV LLC Apartments 17,154,764 9  0.37%
DTE Gas Company Utility         17,057,300 10 0.36%

By: Larry Baird

Larry Baird — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:42:00 +0000

If I recall correctly, the adjacent Lake Village apartment complex on S. Main (which sold in recent years) is one of the largest taxpayers, if not the largest within the city. I think council underestimated the potential and importance of this parcel, especially with the loss of the Oakbrook connection and future impact on traffic flow and congestion.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 04:06:03 +0000

There are not many times that I disagree with Jack Eaton, Sumi K., or Mike Anglin. This is one of them.

The point, as several others have mentioned, is not for the city to make $$ by flipping the property: the point was to exercise even modest control what happens to the land, and particular to keep it from the U. Buying the land was a defensive move, not a speculative move.

I pay property taxes like other home owners, and I’m seldom in favor of the city being in the real estate business; this is one time that I think it would have made strategic sense to buy a piece of land it did not intend for its own use. Short of establishing a toxic waste dump, expanding the athletic campus would be about the least-good thing that could happen to this land, from the city’s point of view.

The city ignores the master plan for downtown at will. This stretch of State hardly seems more sacred than downtown. This would have been a great place for mixed use development.

No mention seems to be made of the response of other Washtenaw governments to the idea of sharing a proportionate share of the risk of purchase. Was any government approached to help buy the land?

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 23:19:54 +0000

No, but it could have managed the direction of development. (And of course, under private development, Ann Arbor’s laws and regs would obtain, and taxes would have paid for services.) All hypothetical, now. We’ll just move on to the next slice of history.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:49:16 +0000

@4: Which of those things would not be true of a privately owned property, Vivienne? You’re not thinking that the city would have retained ownership, are you?