First, neither project was located downtown. Both were proposed for a neighborhood, with residential zoning, adjacent to downtown. Both proposals were looking for major changes to existing zoning without providing the substantial benefits required in return. There were multiple variances requested, some exceeding limits that were just imposed in the new D1 zoning district, our most dense zoning district for the core of downtown! As Ms. Lesko said, this would amount to a subsidy of private developments by allowing the use of less expensive neighborhood land for downtown-sized buildings.

Secondly, the protest petition by immediate neighbors that results in a super-majority requirement for a zoning change is mandated by State law–specifically, the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. This cannot be changed by City Council no matter how much it annoys developers and their friends. It was intended, as the Mayor correctly stated, to give property owners some measure of protection from developments that could negatively impact them. (And it should be noted here that although State law only requires 20% of the land area to be represented in the petitions, the area of protest petitions gathered for both the Moravian and Heritage row totaled well over 50%.)

Developers are often well-connected politically, and are often surrounded by hangers-on that see ANY development as good, even if it destroys the character of the community or goes against the master plans that were created with vast public input. In tough budget times, city staff are under tremendous pressure to approve anything that adds to the tax base. The planning commission members are political appointees who can quickly be shown the door if they don’t tow the line. As a result, many commissioners simply refer back to staff instead of acting as our citizen overseers.

So, as one can see, the deck is well-stacked against neighboring property owners. This is why the protest petition for a super-majority was included in the State statute. From a neighbor’s point-of-view, it may be the only thing “fair” in the entire development approval process.

While the Michigan corridor to Chicago has been mentioned as being appropriate for high-speed rail, there are no plans currently underway that would accomplish travel faster than what is currently allowed, and that is 110 mph. That speed is rarely, if ever, attained, because of deficiencies in rail capacity at several points along the line. And 110 mph, however, does not meet the federal definition of high-speed rail.

(Amtrack’s Acela, for instance, runs at 125 mph, though only for a portion of the line in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.)

Still, the idea that Ann Arbor would spend city money at Fuller park, by building a partnered parking garage with U-M and leaving the door open to a train station, to incentivize high speed rail is crazy. That’s just window dressing to build a parking garage. High speed rail may or may not happen in the years to come, but you can be the decision will be made at a scale that is indifferent to the city’s plans for Fuller Park.

The mayor may not be aware, but Ann Arbor already has six passenger trains a day. If/when commuter demand warrants, the station could be relocated to Fuller Park, but that is unrelated to a parking garage for UM automobile commuters.

The mayor’s argument that no vote is REQUIRED by law, since no “sale” will be part of the donation of land to the U, is dubious on its face. The U will receive most of the benefits and responsibilities of ownership (e.g., control of access to the site, maintenance on building, all parking revenues generated, etc) while the city will loose most of the benefits and responsibilities of ownership. Putting all that aside, however, the mayor and his crowd could put an end to the divisiveness of this project by putting it up to a public vote. Nothing PREVENTS a vote from being held, and if this project really has obvious benefits for city residents, it should not be hard to convince people to vote for it. The mayor could redeem his present ill-favor with many residents by doing the right thing and getting citizen by-in of effectively turning this piece of parkland over to the University. It’s odd that he and his crowd (e.g. Mr. Carsten Hohnke) act so afraid of voters, when by their own words, they have every reason to expect great support. If nothing else, even people who voted against this, and lost, could be at peace with knowing that everyone else really did support it.

Fixing the present train log jam at Porter, IN will increase RELIABILITY of current Amtrak service, but by itself will not make the trip particularly faster, and is unrelated to so-called HIgh Speed Rail, such as Amtrak’s Acela service in the Northeast Corridor. Michigan was explicitly selected out of high speed rail studies by Amtrak in the recent Federal stimulus package, while Tampa-to-Orlando, e.g. was among the places selected. The Dearborn station upgrade was in the stimulus package, and is not part of any high speed rail plan.

If the mayor has some other information, lets see it. Otherwise, this seems like an attempt to make something out of nothing to justify a give-away to the U.

John Floyd
Republican for City Council
5th Ward

If anyone’s interested, here’s about all the history that exists on line: [link]

??

This area is not blighted. It is merely vacant land. Please focus on the difference.

If parts of the fence were removed, it would become a nice deer park.