Retrofitting Argo Dam for hydro-power SHOULD be considered a viable alternative energy opportunity for Ann Arbor because the payback is likely to be less than half the 44 years cited by city officials, especially if a carbon tax is implemented nationally.

I certainly agree that the city can save more and spend less by improving city-wide energy efficiency and alternative energy emphasis should be placed on low-consumption lighting, green roofs, solar power FOR HOT WATER, and by raising energy use standards for Ann Arbor’s built environment.

Solar and wind generated electricity produce a fraction of the electricity of hydroelectric dams per dollar of infrastructure.

This is all incredibly unfortunate. I implore the developer to consider the goodwill that’s been offered by the city (not by the neighborhood; by the city) in terms of permitting the by-right development in committee, and in Council’s signaling of a willingness to approve it themselves, despite their reservations. Surely at this point something acceptable to all sides could be created. (I also realize a bunch of drawings don’t necessarily represent a good understanding of what a plan might entail.)

I know this would be a burden to the developer, but the alternative is for the developer to build something that would be a burden to the city. An alternative plan would result in a win-win situation, even if it delays results for the developer for another year or so. It’s Ann Arbor: things just take time. I’m sorry–we’re all sorry–but it’s so.

I also ask the developer to consider that Councilmember Briere at least seemed to share some sympathy with their position. She is right: the neighborhood doesn’t get to decide, except by their elected representative. I also fully support neighborhood involvement, but when intransigence from one side (or both, as the case may be) results in a lose-lose plan, obviously this is counterproductive at best. I’d like the developer to think that they’ve learned enough to know what sort of alternative would be approved–the planning commission knows what’s realistic and what isn’t, as does Council. They, at least, know the neighborhood will change. Please try to trust them.

I understand that an alternate plan would require a brand-new proposal; it’s unfortunate that the option to re-submit an alternate plan lapsed. (I don’t know what happened there, but get the feeling that some breakoff in communication with the GNO led to the feeling that the alternate plan wouldn’t be worth it, hence there was no motion to reconsider because there was nothing to reconsider.)

Starting over would not be a loss. Please consider that another councilmember was involved in apparently good-faith discussions with the GNO, signaling a willingness by Council to resolve appropriate differences at the appropriate level. No development is perfect–Council and its staff knows this–but when no one is happy with a project, including the developer, clearly something has gone off the rails.

This should not be a battle to the death, and it doesn’t have to be. Both the city and the developer owe themselves more than that. If the proposal is withdrawn, I will be writing my representative (Hohnke) the next day, urging him to do whatever he can to assist the developer in creating an alternative that most will be happier with than not. I have no doubt that an acceptable alternative is possible.

Again, to the developer: please reconsider.

Thanks very much.

Mike Zeddies
aka Young Urban Amateur

For example, the calculation includes over 2 million in savings from positions that are currently vacant. The city does not need an early retirement plan to get savings from a hiring freeze.