If developers want to build new buildings (the current credit crunch and depression notwithstanding), that’s the best signal we have that some people have a need to live in homes or locations that aren’t being met. There will always be vacancies in even the healthiest markets.

My original post was in reaction to a statement that I interpreted as, “We should not allow more people to live here.” My position is that we should absolutely encourage more people to live here. It seems that between the economy and high-rise construction costs, the high-end condo and luxury rental market is tapped out. I think we have to find ways to plan for the construction of lower-rise dense structures if people want to live in them.

(Please ignore the Headlee/Prop A hyperbole–that’s from my unrelated frustration with our land taxation system and even further afield from my already tangential quest.)

1. Early growth of the city of Ann Arbor was doubtless due to annexation. The State Boundary Commission was authorized in 1968 and protections for townships against annexation by cities was considerably strengthened in 1978. Until recently the city still had many “township islands” which are now mostly being absorbed into the city but as part of the agreement that was reached 10 years ago or so between the city and its surrounding townships, no further outward growth of the city is occurring.

2. Growth of the townships in 2000-2008 was coincident with the housing bubble. This sprawl growth was a result, in my opinion, of people moving into Washtenaw County to enjoy relatively lower costs of owning a large house on a large lot. Increased numbers of residences (whether through smaller lots or taller buildings) in the city would not in itself have enticed those particular new residents.

Sorry to have started (and continued) this off-topic discussion.

“…the demographics tell us that we are a place in decline.”

“The fact is that we are losing population, both in Michigan and in Ann Arbor.”

“The US Census representative who attended the AA Dems meeting last Saturday said estimates are that Ann Arbor will have lost 1,000 residents from year 2000 to year 2010.”

“Who is going to move to Ann Arbor? Well, even in the boom years, almost nobody did.”

For those reading along each of the above statements have problems with clarity, or are wrong.

The U. S. Census has the state of Michigan estimated with a population INCREASE of .7% from 2000 to 2008. While it may be true that ‘Ann Arbor’ (meaning the City of Ann Arbor only) has lost 1,000 residents, Washtenaw County has an estimated increase of 7.6%. While I could not find population estimates for all the townships surrounding the City of Ann Arbor from 2000 to 2008 (the years through which the U. S. Census has estimated) historically for the last 30 or 40 years the majority of the growth in the Ann Arbor metropolitan area has been in Pittsfield, Scio, and Ypsilanti Townships. The U. S. census estimates that Pittsfield Township has had 23% growth (2000 to 2008) and Ypsilanti Township is flat. Scio Township’s numbers are not available.

The City of Ann Arbor’s population had steady growth from the 1800’s until 1970 and has remained fairly constant since 1970 at around 100,000 people. Since the 1970’s the townships surrounding the City of Ann Arbor has grown steadily; particularly in the boom years.

I offer these numbers in contrast to the quotes above.

Mr. Eaton prefaces a recommendation with, “Rather than induce dense development for which there is little demand…” There may be ‘little demand’ today, due to very recent economic events, but the same argument was made to block projects prior to the economic meltdown.

In many ways we may have missed the boat on balancing our city’s density and the quality of its environment. Had this been the focus in the 1970’s and 80’s it would have been easier and we would have a much better city and region.

I’m also confused by “people who are sitting on their absurd Hedley zero-property-tax windfalls”. What does that mean? I assume that “Hedley” actually refers to Headlee – with regard to property tax it means a reduction in millage rate each year, but not zero tax, as far as I know. Or could the writer actually be referring to Proposition A (1994) that capped the rise in taxable value to 5% or the rate of inflation (whichever is less). But that is not zero tax either. In fact, many are seeing their taxes continuing to rise even as the assessed value of their homes decreases.

I’m all for balancing the budget, fixing potholes, and making sure our fire and police are at minimum levels for outstanding service. These services are getting more expensive every year, so is this being used as an argument to prohibit more people from living here and helping to pay for these services? The more people there are within a defined geographic area, the cheaper these services become per capita (or, perhaps, the costs don’t rise as quickly, more likely).

And to answer Mr. Dairy’s question: Who is going to move to Ann Arbor? Well, even in the boom years, almost nobody did. You talk about fixing infrastructure: who the heck is going to pay for that? Certainly not people who are sitting on their absurd Hedley zero-property-tax windfalls. They could care less what kind of taxes people are paying when property taxes are uncapped. We need more property and business taxes.

And I was trying be generous by ignoring “the impact on the environment, schools, non-profits and local businesses” because if you asked anyone in the HRWC, AAPS, the Michigan Theater, or any business downtown if we should allow more people to live in the city limits, guess what their answer would be?

I’m waiting for a compelling argument as to why more people shouldn’t be allowed to live here. let alone why we shouldn’t be doing everything in our power to encourage them to do so. (This doesn’t have to be 25-story buildings, mind you, but I am pretty sick of Tower Plaza being our skyline.)

Well, said, Jack!

The US Census representative who attended the AA Dems meeting last Saturday said estimates are that Ann Arbor will have lost 1,000 residents from year 2000 to year 2010. I think that for the first half of that decade we probably gained population, so that means in the last few years we have lost more than 1,000 residents. This is not hard to believe. We have an unemployment rate of about 10%, so those really in need of a job will leave for opportunities that do not exist in Michigan.

You say “Let’s ignore the impact on the environment, schools, non-profits and local businesses for the moment so as not to muddy the water.” But assuming away the downside does not mean you have demonstrated that there is no downside. It merely means you choose to exclude data from your analysis.

The current city council “money & buildings” majority has significantly increased the per capita cost of government through a series of ill conceived borrowing and building schemes. The vacancy rates in retail, office and residential properties demonstrate that there is no market demand for the developments favored by density theorist who clamor for bigger, taller and denser development.

Rather than induce dense development for which there is little demand, we should balance our city budget, fix our roads and bridges and maintain our police and fire staffing. If we address the basics, businesses will come to Ann Arbor for the 47% percent of our adult population who have a college degree or more. Until then, we should stop pretending that we can increase our population merely by adding to the surplus of buildings we already have.

While my comment is off-topic, I think this is an important statement. I assume this crystallizes your position on whether we should share our city with any more residents, no matter where their homes are or whether these new homes replace other structures or are built on vacant land. The corollary to this is that other places (townships, rural areas, other cities) should get the people who might otherwise would like to live here.

I assume you are for zero population growth (right?). However, the US population is expected to grow under most scenarios [link], and even when it does begin a slow decline, it is not unreasonable to expect certain healthy institutions and industries (education, medicine) will cause some places (like Ann Arbor) to continue to face increased pressure for additional residential development. What do we do if there are more people who want to live here? I see your comment about people living in the townships to escape Ann Arbor’s “idiocies,” but seriously: Should we put more people in the position to commute in?

If we were living in a place that was far from fresh water and farmland, I might concur with your spin on sustainability. I don’t believe this is the case here, however. (There is a lot we should be doing to prepare ourselves locally for when cheap energy goes away, but throwing our jobs-housing balance further out of whack and forcing more car commuting is going in the other direction.)

I’m curious: If it could be demonstrated that having additional residents would slow the growth in the per-capita cost burden for all residents for the foreseeable future (sharing the maintenance of current and additional infrastructure, parks, transit, city workers, etc.), would you still be against having more people living here and contributing their tax dollars? Let’s ignore the impact on the environment, schools, non-profits and local businesses for the moment so as not to muddy the water.

“NIMBY”s are simply people defending their homes, neighborhoods and quality of life from name-calling bigots who don’t care whose homes they wreck. Notice that few of the people calling others “NIMBY” live in the places they propose to wreck. It’s always easy to demolish someone else’s neighborhood

As to Mr. Leinberger’s comment that “In the 1950s, 50% of households had children – today, only 33% do, and in the next few decades that percentage will drop even more. “The demographics are telling us something,” the demographics tell us that we are a place in decline. Sustainability is about not needing to import outside resources to survive. This begins with people.

I get that people chose to live outside the city because there is more perceived bang for the buck, but there always is a tipping point. As the near to intermediate term future for Michigan is stagnation, the City should focus on winning this zero sum game. As prospects improve, the strategy can change to involve a larger region.

It doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than the alternatives. You don’t have to outrun the bear, just the adjacent towns and townships.