I too believe that Planning Commissioners have the city’s best interest at heart, but the process of choosing them is highly political and the balance of power has changed, and not in a good way, in the recent past. Checks and balances between the PC, internal city hall staff and council need to be restructured and realigned.

One of the worst things that happened to PDS as a result of the reorganization was to put the planning department with construction and inspection services under the same management. They are separate functions and should be managed separately with all managers working together as equals. Each department should be structured around teams of employees and not according to a predetermined corporate hierarchy with several layers of management between the decision makers (not front line staff) and the users of the service.

I believe it was Fraser’s attempt to consolidate all departments related to planning, development, construction and inspection services under several layers of management that led to the problems. Instead of keeping the service providers and services close those who use them, the department became highly bureaucratized and unable to effectively respond to customers individual concerns. It became too complicated for everyone to navigate. Employees were limited in their decision making ability because all decisions came from the top. The one size fits all corporate structure was a bad fit for what are essentially personalized services.

The development/planning process could be simplified by undoing most of what Fraser and Miller attempted and decentralizing each department’s activities. Allow the managers and staff, working with their specific customers, to determine what works best, rather than by edict from on high. Most front line staff is experienced and knows what works. They also know how best to serve the needs of their customers because they share similar experiences and talk the same language. It’s not wise to assume that a clerk in planning knows what a construction permit holder or a rental property owner needs or wants. The same goes for planners and inspectors. Cross training at that level is a failure because of the different knowledge bases needed for each skill set. Planning and construction processes are not like paying a water bill or a parking ticket.

What we have now is a dismal failure and everyone who does business with PDS knows it. To continue down this bureaucratic path is to invite more planning, development and construction inspection headaches.

The importance of August primaries also disadvantages student participation since many are out of the community during the primaries (you can argue if this is a good thing or not). I suspect this will be a barrier for Yousef Rabhi’s campaign for county commission.

#21: Interesting points. You describe the mayor as supporting “increased, albeit politically safe, development.” I think this is a fair assessment of they mayor. When some portray him as an out-of-control development hound, I look at his actions such as the “no” vote on the Moravian, his appointment Erica Briggs to the Planning Commission (who has tended to be development-skeptical), and his support for the proposed Germantown Historic District.

There are multiple ways to interpret these actions by the Mayor. He could be responding to constituent concerns or demonstrating a nuanced position on development are two that come to mind, I’m sure there are others.

#19: I know several of the planning commissioners, including some on both sides of this divide. I’ve seen them as thoughtful people who are volunteering their time to support a more vibrant community. Yes, there are disagreements about what that looks like, but that doesn’t mean they are out to get either neighborhoods or developers.

My other point is that I find the way people talk about change here (and it is not isolated to here) is many times not helpful; it feels a lot closer to what you would expect in Washington than a town hall discussion among neighbors, and it starts with the hyperbole. That’s exactly Mr. Warpehoski’s first point and I agree with it. Facts are distorted, there is no ‘assume good intent’. I believe there is truth to the idea that AA citizens need more information to be able to accept ADU’s. Ms. Armentrout admits that through discussion and consideration she has come around but I do not assume that the rest of the people who opposed ADU’s attended the same debates and forums. I consider the Orwellian references in the first two posts to be the wrong way to start a dialogue about something one of the posters says she thinks is a good idea.

But moving on to your analysis in #21, staff is indeed caught up in this, not due to incompetence but due to a lack of communication. It has been clear for years that the staff has little sense of what the PC wants, who have little sense of what the Council wants. Numerous proposals have worked to satisfy staff and then moved on to get overwhelming PC approval only to be denied by council. That’s not ‘the system is working’. That’s dysfunctional and it stems from a lack of communication. And specifically the communication tool lacking is a functioning and well used master plan.

“When did PUD’s become more popular in Ann Arbor?” I do not believe planners or developers are big fans of PUDs. A PUD is much more difficult to set up, to pitch, and to own; once you agree to the terms you cannot change them without re-writing the PUD. So why are they more popular? I think because they allow the lack of communication to exist without resolution, because they allow projects to be built without reference to a big picture; that is that master plan. A PUD is an exception it can be looked at as an isolated event.

A PUD is also a kind of an anchor. The building codes get updated as should a community’s zoning code and master plan but a PUD, which is a code written for a specific parcel or parcels, does not unless the owner choose to update it. So if you agree to the building’s use, as say a hotel, you cannot change it to a bed and breakfast, or a boarding house, or an apartment even 20 years later without re-writing the PUD and going through the process. Also if you write into the PUD that you will use a particular new and highly efficient heating system that everybody loves today you cannot change it when the technology gets better without the process. If a fountain is your public benefit you must keep the fountain regardless of people’s tastes for fountains in the future.

[Also, is your real name Mr. Dairy? I once knew a Mr. Produce.]

Mr. Bean (#18) I do not understand your point.

Ms. Armentrout (#14), sorry no personnel investment.

I believe that a lack of clear direction and competent management coupled with politicization by city hall administration, their political masters and the Planning Commission results in the mixed messages, back tracking and contentious decisions we see for virtually every large scale development. It’s almost seems like the process was designed to confuse and irritate all stakeholders.

The many months spent mapping the process were supposed to clarify and simplify the development process. PDS and the process had to fit Fraser’s scheme for a corporate style reorganization of city hall. It was about being prepared to attract and grease the skids for bigger development. I fell that many people misread the city and were basing their decisions on Ann Arbor becoming something other than what it is. Their vision was to be like Chicago, Portland or some other place where we felt the grass was greener. Was there a method to this madness? Or was is just short sightedness with a dash of greed (power, influence, a higher office)?

I feel that the reasons for this are that everyone at the top levels in city hall including elected officials, possibly with everyone’s best interest at heart (I’m being generous here) imagined that the city would grow at some exponential rate and we should have a planning and development process to handle development on a larger scale. The reorganization of PDS and the “streamlining” of the development process was premised on the (unsustainable) boom of the decade before the economic collapse. Unfortunately, it appears that the politicians and developers who still believe that bigger is better (building and bureaucracy) have not yet digested the message.

What I find disturbing is that it seems we’re more concerned with planning and development wonkery (heights, density etc) than restructuring and depoliticizing the planning and development process in ways to allow it to serve everyone who has a stake in the outcome. I guess the only way to do this is to have candidates with strong, independent voices and vote.

You appear to be against business owners having input into city issues even though they are actually part of the community.

Do you hold the same sentiment for landlords? Especially those landlords who live 50 miles away and only use there property here as an investment and really don’t care about other city issues. Did they have your full support in the Moravian project?

The Moravian debate was actually about the will of “business owners (landlords)being greater than the will of the public benefits. 90-95% of that neighborhood is rentals.

In my opinion, whether you rent property or own a business they are both investments and should be weighted the same.

#22: Do you mean Bonnie Bona, the current chair?

The top-down nature of planning does not work well with democracy and self-government, unless it is informed by humility and a genuine desire to understand what the public wants. Comments such as ‘[attempts by planners to allow accessory apartments were ]“flattened” after two years of public debate’, apparently complaining about the existence, robustness, and effectiveness of public debate on planning issues, or “Would [it] be useful to have a [AHP] meeting just for business owners?” do not help engender trust and good will towards either the Planning Commission or planning staff, however great their technical skills, and however worthy their humanity.

Our current local political culture, that relies on low-turnout, often-uncontested primaries to select public officials, is not effective at keeping public officials engaged with the public at large, and this disengagement flows down to the city’s bureaucracy. The effects of this culture are not always immediately apparent, but over time they have created a sense of entitlement and a habit of secrecy by those in power, and a sense of distrust (vs. mere disagreement) by many members of the public. The ultimate solution to our planning problems, as with so many of our local government’s problems, lies with a return to contested general elections – partisan, or non-partisan – that force elected officials to engage with the public, and to be accountable to voters.

The changes to the development process began when Hieftje, about the time of his election to Mayor, decided he favored increased, albeit politically safe, development. It’s well known that his split with Doug Cowherd, who helped elect him to council, has roots in Hieftje’s change of heart regarding development. It’s not news that Hieftje’s views of development “matured” over time.

Inside City hall, the internal development process mapping (planning/development process “streamlining”) and departmental reorganization, both conducted by consultant Kerry Laycock, were made during the citywide workforce restructuring that put Jayne Miller in charge of Planning. She hired Mark Lloyd. And purchased Etrakit, the software that was supposed to produce staff reports based on developers info and fewer staff comments, just by pushing a button. It hasn’t worked as the administration planned.

The workforce reorganization and new management style seemed designed to limit planning staff input. Staff was encouraged to be more customer friendly which was intimated and interpreted as helping developers find ways around the existing codes and Master Plan, like PUD’s. (When did PUD’s become more popular in Ann Arbor?)

Hieftje continued making appointments to the Planning Commission and other influential boards and commissions and help elect council members who shared his new views on development. Planning Commission’s power and influence increased over that of professional staff with the help of increasingly employee hostile city administration. Hieftje had loyal votes on council. Politics trumped bureaucratic professionalism.

I’m not saying that this was conspiratorial on his part or that Hieftje did not have the political power or assumed right as mayor to rebuild the development process to favor his views. What I’m saying is that the dots can be easily connected in a way that asks questions about how and why it changed under Hieftje’s tenure.