How so? The language Vivienne posted shows an intent to allow the Greenbelt acquisitions to meet multiple purposes. Like all initiatives, it’s up to the body charged with implementing it to put in place standards to guide the effort. That’s what the commission is doing. If you want to disagree with their focus, that’s your choice but I’ve yet to see anything that says the Commission is operating outside of the intent of the Greenbelt proposal or the language controlling it.

“I’m not a bit surprised the issue of being locked in to a long term option to purchase development rights that resulted in the potential $2 Million overpayment has dropped totally off the radar screen while the Greenbelt team spends its time on hoophouse roof sizes. ”

Still shilling that false claim Jack? The city isn’t locked into anything. It can choose or not choose to exercise the option. I stated the last time this was discussed that the city has to decide whether its worth the additional cost above the appraised value to secure this property. The property owner has no obligation to sell at the appraised price and ultimately, it’s the negotiated price that matters to making the deal go, not the appraised price.

That said, Mr. Dairy’s point seems kind of nonsensical. The city is not imposing some regime on the townships. Most Ann Arbor people I know are only vaguely aware the townships even exist. The townships (with the exception of Northfield, apparently) are happy to reap the benefits of Ann Arbor’s money being used to preserve open space, plus we get to use your parks, shopping, etc. If Ann Arbor wants to pay Scio Township farmers to keep farming, I’m not sure who in Scio is going to object.

OK, I’ll bite. Then just what is the center? … of the county that is. (The Chronicle being geared to our community, I’ll just let the universe take a back seat.)

Bingo. Once this group is honest and open about their failures to watch over taxpayer dollars, then maybe they can move on to government tax dollar support of fresh tomatos that should be used for “preserving and protecting open space, natural habitats and the City’s sourcewaters”. Maybe they should read the original millage request.

I did not vote in favor of the Greenbelt and I saw it as a politically motivated feel good issue sold as a cure for sprawl by certain local politicians to promote their mania for urban development.

I also think that more than a few people in Ann Arbor have a superior attitude that they know what’s best for the townships and how they relate to the city. Ann Arbor is not the center of the universe or Washtenaw County and it needs to get over that attitude in order to get along better with it’s suburban and rural neighbors

The city and the townships are inextricably connected. The townships realize that they cannot continue their quality of life without an urban core nearby. I trust the people in the surrounding townships to decide their own future.

Actually, the original legislation does not mention food production or small farms at all. I fully support this current effort to make small farms possible. I have long thought that small farms oriented toward farm-to-consumer sales that are located within the greater Ann Arbor urban region will both enhance quality of life and increase food security.

But – in the interests of accuracy, neither the whereases, the resolveds, nor the ballot language mention any of these things. The ballot language calls “for the purpose of funding the acquisition of land for parks and the acquisition and management of land and land rights in undeveloped and developed land both within and outside the City of Ann Arbor for the purpose of preserving and protecting open space, natural habitats and the City’s sourcewaters.”

See [link]