Stewart, could you explain why you think that is the case?

On the parking issue, does anyone have any thoughts on the potential environmental lawsuit involving the planned/proposed Library underground parking structure covered in the Ann Arbor News today?

I note that you seem to disagree with the process for this particular piece of art but from your comments I take it that you support the 1% for art program.

One point that I would make is that the committee is made up of residents with knowledge in area of art, local artists, a business man, an art professor from the university and in the case of this piece citizens active in the downtown area, the Watershed Council Director, etc.

There was nothing in the council resolution establishing the program that said the task of coming up with a set process had to be in place before any selections were made. Only that the board needed to come up with a process. From boards I have observed this type of thing can take many meetings, sometimes a whole year.

The group needed to make a decision when they did if the theme they selected was going to be acted upon because it needed to be part of the plumbing in the building.

I guess I don’t see anything wrong with the actions of this group of citizens who volunteered their time for the public good.

You ask what we are getting for the money?

A piece by the most renowned artist on the planet for this type of work. Someone who has won awards from other US cities as well as cities in Europe and for all I know, beyond that. The selection committee was being conservative on this, rather than take a chance on their first big commission they went with a sure thing. I can’t blame them.

Like Two Cents, I would be very much against taking this money from the purpose for which it was set aside and spending it for short term operating expenses.

Hind sight is always 20/20, but is not necessarily accurate. Even if the court house was not being built then that money would not and should not be used for operating expenses; it would be and should be saved for the next infrastructure project. Your analogy that this money should be used to fund city operating expenses is bad business.

It is equivalent to pulling money out of your 401K plan (a plan in which you saved for a specific purpose-retirement) to pay your bills. One would only do this when absolutely desperate after you first cut out entertainment, all unnecessary purchases and maybe eat more frugally. Many of you want us to pull out the 401K money to pay for items that fall into an equivalent category of “paying the bills”. It is just not fiscally responsible.

What is scary to me is that former and potential elected officials cannot recognize how fiscally irresponsible their thinking is. It is one thing to be anti-PD/courts building; it is another thing to actually believe that this money should fund operating expenses.

If you are against public art, you should come out and say so. Tell it to the many cities and states that have such a program. Whenever the economy turns art is what gets thrown overboard first. I don’t think a city known for art should do that.

The program was in formation for years. I respect all 11 members of the city council who stuck with a program that will provide long term benefits to the community long after we are all gone.

It was the vote to sell the bonds and it was 9 to 2 with Kunselman and Suarez voting in favor. By that time all but two council members were in agreement that the building was needed and there were no alternatives that would meet the courts security requirements.

You are correct Vivienne that the economy was certainly going south but there was no hint that property values would begin to plummet since this had not happened in A2 since the late 70′s – early 80′s. This view was so prevalent that the county did not see it coming either.

Regarding the economy, again, what I said above was not as you say “in error.” I wrote: “the votes came before the market crash and the foreclosure crisis.” This was what happened.

You are correct in that there were “storm clouds” but that is easy to say now. In the end there was nothing that could have been done anyway.

The county had told the city they needed to move out of the court house by the end of 2010. The city had spent years in planning and evaluating alternatives. Building on the county site would have solved nothing in that the city would have paid for all their own costs and, the same as today but would have still been paying rent and 40 year space problem for the police would have remained unsolved.

Now the saved rents can go to make the bond payments. Without a new building there would have been no rent savings, only more and more rent to pay.

You would know that the county’s budget hole is a whole lot deeper than what the city faces. I suppose you will blame it on their building projects. I guess we don’t need more space in a jail that has become a revolving door with those arrested last week going back on the streets to make room for those arrested this week. Maybe there was no need for a new courthouse in Saline.

What fun you can all have in August when the county is making 20% cuts.

As to the Percent for Art, this is not “money that was budgeted from other projects” but a surcharge on all capital improvements. This surcharge effectively increases the cost of each project. It is not extra or free money, but an additional cost of doing business.

Pfizer announced that it would close its Ann Arbor research facility in January 2007. News reports from 2007 indicated that Michigan was in the third year of a “one-state recession”. The national economy was sufficiently bad in late 2007 and early 2008 that the Bush administration and Congress sent out stimulus checks to give it a boost. We hadn’t yet had a meltdown, but there were plenty of storm clouds that council should have considered before authorizing a huge public works project.