“Moreover, well over 50 downtown businesses validate parking for their customers, making it possible to park for free in the center of the action, near world-class restaurants and retail shops, extraordinary museums, galleries, and concerts, and a host of other attractions.”

This has been true for many years.

The proposal council will be considering on Feb. 17 does not double rates in any category of parking by the end of the period being considered. However, it’s true that initial discussions by DDA (reflected in board meeting minutes from summer 2008) of the kind of rate increase that would be necessary to finance the 5th Avenue parking structure included a rise by FY 2016 to $2.00 for metered parking — which represents a doubling from the current rate. Those discussions also saw a rise in rates for hourly parking in structures to $1.50 (almost double from its current $.80 rate) by FY 2017.

But the rate increase proposal that will be before council on Feb. 17 goes only through 2012 and sees rates increase for metered parking from $1.00 now to $1.40 in 2012. It would raise hourly structure parking from a rate of $.80 now to $1.10 in 2012.

A fair question is: What plans are after 2012? Based on Roger Hewitt’s contribution to deliberations at the last board meeting, I conclude there is no projected need to continue to raise rates after 2012. In that light, it’s also fair to ask what, if anything, changed between summer 2008 and now that yields a different analysis. It’s a question that would be useful for councilmembers to address during deliberations on Feb. 17.

And by the way, the Feb 17. is correct. The meetings, which are usually on Mondays, get shifted to Tuesday when there’s a Monday holiday.

Just because you scream the loudest doesn’t make you the majority or even correct in your thinking.

We vote in our councilmemebers to argue this for us.

Six thousand people couldn’t obstruct your determined desire to spend $90 million dollars on a new building over the next 30 years.

I’m flattered if you think I, alone, could obstruct such profligacy…. :-) If that’s true, you’ll vote against doubling parking rates for Ann Arbor citizens on the 17th of this month, maybe?

Leigh:

Thrill us all with a budget that increases services for taxpayers. Quadruple the puny $180K allocation to affordable housing, (with such an increase, it’d still be 35 percent of what Berkeley, California’s Council allocated this year) increase money for parks, allocate money to replace sidewalks, like they do in Dexter and Livonia, and give back money cut from the budget to adequately maintain our urban forest. Don’t accidentally “forget” to allocate money for Human Services so someone on Council can look good while “demanding” the money be put back. Heck, come up with a new service for taxpayers, why don’tcha! I love the idea of two hours of free parking for residents in downtown structures, like they give residents in Birmingham, MI.

I retain the right to say I told you so. Not that this ever proves helpful, as we have seen this year.

In the letter, Mr. Guenzel actually writes that he would not recommend any short- or long-term extension of the lease, unless the new PD/Courts facility is already under construction, in which case he would recommend a short-term lease. He also wrote that if any Commissioner proposed a longer lease, he would recommend a “substantial increase to the City’s lease cost.” Several Commissioners have said the increase would likely be $100,000/year or more. The Commissioners were all copied on Mr. Guenzel’s letter.

I urge Pat to follow the news more closely. Not only would she have been aware of the Guenzel letter — which has been public for ten months — but she’d know that the City explored every option that was suggested internally and externally, no matter how radical the idea. To name a few, City staff toured and/or priced out: (1) the Pfizer site; (2) Ava Maria Law School; (3) Tally Hall; (4) the old Mervyn’s site near Briarwood; (5) the City Center Bldg.; (6) a new complex located next to the County Courthouse; and (7) the parking lot next to the Library. All of these were proven infeasible and/or more expensive.

All of this has been public for months and, in the case of touring other sites, years. Accordingly, I do not see how the debate would have changed.

I again urge Pat and others who continue to protest to identify a VIABLE alternative that solves the Court issue AND the Police issue. I’ve asked for this at the Council table every time we take a vote. I’ve been giving that speech for years. Nobody has ever offered a viable alternative. This community deserves better than Pat’s politics of obstruction.