It cracks me up that the immigration law is being categorized as “racist.” It is not Arizona’s fault that the vast majority of illegal immigrants happen to be Hispanic. This has nothing to do with rates, but everything to do with inflation, crime, lack of services, declines in our schools, etc.

Thanks–
A formal liberal raised in Ann Arbor who has had enough

It reminds me of the on-going radio joke in Chicago a few years ago on the day of the nationwide illegal immigration marches, demonstrations etc. In went something like “don’t expect to get a fast-food meal today or to see a lawn mowed”

this is of a piece with the idea now in vogue that obeying the law really isn’t that important. what part of “illegal” does the A2 City Council not understand?

and I share the amusement of the poster above who points out the hypocrisy of a city council being against a state law because it conflicts with a federal law.

let’s get back to parking, ok Council?

The city is filled with slum condition student housing that continually avoids any meaningful city oversight. It’s what this is all about–trying to stomp out new development of student focused housing that will complete with current slumlord owned locations. It’s not the past vs. the future–it’s the resident slum housing owners vs. new kids on the block who want to make money (nothing wrong with that) from parents who don’t want their student children living in third would housing conditions.

It is irrelevant whether or not it wastes council time or resources or whether council members feel symbolic statements are called for. Rapundalo hits close to the mark when he points out the fallacy of a city government criticizing a state immigration law on the grounds that the immigration is the purview of the federal government; if it’s the fed’s purview, let them address it.

The real issue is that I don’t vote for city council members based on their opinions on national matters. They don’t campaign on those issues and they are not being asked to represent the citizens of Ann Arbor on them. In other words, they presume to speak for Ann Arbor — to represent what Ann Arborites think — when not one voter in Ann Arbor authorized them to speak for them on this kind of issue. They are elected to represent our voices on local matters and those that directly affect (and let’s not get cute here) the citizens of Ann Arbor. As a matter of principle, they should refrain from such grandstanding primarily because it is simply not their job, the job we hired them to do.

By the way, of course the Arizona law is unconstitutional. But that is not the point. Don’t speak for us where we didn’t ask you to. This takes away our fundamental right to speak for ourselves and in doing so takes away our dignity. You are not our parents, you are not our priests, you are not the moral leaders of the community… you are elected to govern our city for us. Now, please get on with your good work. Thank you.

“The Law or Unintended Consequences”. From the beginning I have believed the proposed formation of the historic district was nothing but a means stop a developer. I doubt anyone, including the residents and local history buffs, would have ever proposed making this ares into a historic district if the development proposal has not been put forward. I am amused to think that with the defeat of the proposal and other legal/political manuverings by the residents, the city could end up with the least desirable development option.

the original brownstone-like proposal: [link]

the monstrosity that may come to pass: [link]