No matter what was or wasn’t said (or meant)during the campaign to get the Greenbelt ordinance passed, the only thing that matters now is the law as it is written.
If the recommendations of the GAC do not seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the enabling ordinance, then the GAC should be asked to explain how their actions relate to the ordinance. They (and the Council) have to comply with the law as written or a court can make them do so.
We all have to understand the ordinance which provides the rules for the Greenbelt. It is the arbiter of the disputes of all the parties
involved in the Greenbelt.
Followed by your selective use of the facts? The city has increased density, land has been purchased in the city and within close proximity to the city and the use of the funds has been open and transparent. But of course you can’t provide any examples that would counter those points, just accusations.
]]>As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Were you even here when the Greenbelt proposal was approved? From your comments, I don’t think so.
“Ms. Hall knows this…how?”
Protecting local farms and a local food supply was one of the selling points of the original proposal.
“For a GREENBELT tax paid by A2 taxpayers? Of course we wouldn’t want GREENBELT near the city…”
A percentage of the greenbelt millage is intended to purchase open space and parkland inside the city limits. That accomplishes the purpose of providing open space in close proximity to the city by acquiring open space where taxpayers live inside the city limits. The remainder of the millage is intended for the acquisition of development rights on farmland. In some cases, it’s been used to acquire open space. But the primary intent wasn’t to purchase open space for the sake of having open space around the city.
]]>3:68. Greenbelt district land; criteria for selection.
(3) Land acquisition criteria. Sites for consideration shall be evaluated using the criteria listed below together with any other criterion determined by GAC to be appropriate to accomplishing the purpose of this Ordinance.
————————
That is, land shall be selected by the GAC by applying applicable criteria for the benefit of residents of the City of Ann Arbor.
Judging from commissioner comments, a review of how Greenbelt purchases are expected to benefit the residents of Ann Arbor seems appropriate.
]]>So this wasn’t considered very important originally when the point system was created? For a GREENBELT tax paid by A2 taxpayers? Of course we wouldn’t want GREENBELT near the city…
]]>Ms. Hall knows this…how?
]]>