Mr. Berriz spoke of developers (himself included) with real capital who have committed to investing over the long term in Ann Arbor. Clearly they see enough potential return on their investments to put up with our allegedly cumbersome processes. Or, put another way, they are willing to jump through the hoops because they see the opportunity for long-term gain.

Ask the planning department for their spreadsheet that documents submitted projects, their approval status, and the time it took them to get through the process. The data may surprise you. It did when I saw it about a year and a half ago. The vast majority of stalled projects in Ann Arbor were not those that could not make it through the process. The stalled projects were those that were approved, but could not be financed. State law enables the City to require a performance guarantee of developers, but the City has not enforced this. The result? Existing housing and businesses were taken out and replaced with vacant lots with much lower property taxes.

Broadway Village is probably the best example of out-of-town developers coming in, demanding public money and special zoning, promising the moon, and not delivering. There is a fenced vacant lot (still contaminated) at Maiden Lane and Broadway to commemorate this for us all. Several businesses, with their jobs and tax revenues, are no longer there.

Board ups can be found at Main and Catherine (former Greek church), site of the failed Gallery project, as well as Main and Summit, where several affordable houses have been boarded up for years–one recently burned. Glen and Ann is another vacant lot close to downtown, where businesses and houses once stood, paying taxes and providing jobs and housing. Now it is a fenced eyesore with the out-of-state developer/owner paying only minimal property taxes for vacant land. That project (Glen Ann Place) was granted approval by City Council instead of Council backing up the Historic District Commission in court. The developer was just granted an extension to keep his vacant lot for a couple more years. There are several more examples.

Developments that ran into snags because they tried to work around zoning included The Moravian, Heritage Row, Near North, 42 North, the Elks PUD, and even the aforementioned Broadway Village.

Also, the literal version of your story is, as Tom points out, ridiculous. Did developers really “knock on your door,” look at Ann Arbor’s process, then “shake your hand and walk away”? It’s doubtful that events proceeded in such a fanciful manner. So the nuances of exactly which developers, which projects, how they came to you, how they engaged with the process, what their specific objections were, in what context, in what economic conditions, and why they decided to “walk away” are all missing here–all we have is an oversimplified, and therefore slanted, anecdote. And of course, it makes no mention of all the developers who *did* choose to continue with the process, and succeeded.

Tom’s quite right in pointing out that this kind of testimony is a bad basis for making public policy, even if it *feels* like a true description of the situation to you. That’s not a slur on your integrity–it’s pointing out that your story, as presented, is not credible in a way that a public body needs to make good decisions.

Also, I’m confused by his remarks about the AATA Transit Master Plan process. We did meet at churches, schools, with neighborhood associations and many others. If Mr. Whitaker disagrees with the outcome, that’s fine, but the process complied with his definition of community engagement. I suggest anyone who is interested in reviewing both the process and content of the Transit Master Plan, go to the AATA website – movingyouforward.org. As always, as an AATA Board member and current Chair, I am available to discuss any issue anyone has regarding AATA.

The development of the city-owned lots downtown has indeed had a fractious history, including the drama of the 3-site plan and the confused RFP process that led to both the 415 W. Washington and Library Lot efforts ending inconclusively. I think that this type of development effort differs from straightforward commercial development on privately owned property. I hope that the DDA is able to put together an effective comprehensive plan with “robust” public participation – one that truly takes in the big picture of the future of Ann Arbor’s downtown rather than merely trying to satisfy the usual “stakeholders” who have often claimed primacy.

I won’t try to best Tom Whitaker’s excellent points on what public participation should mean.

This is a ridiculous, anecdotal statement, irresponsibly presented as fact. First, the data I’ve seen shows that approval for the vast majority of projects submitted to the City comes quickly and without much opposition, even in (gasp!) historic districts. The new Downtown Plan and zoning makes this process even smoother. Those who run into snags are those who look to circumvent current ordinances and policy and try to force things that are not supported by the community’s master plans.

Secondly, when there is money to be made, the “real capital” as Mr. Berriz calls it, will be in it for the long haul. If they have to jump through a few hoops along the way, so be it. Developers and entrepreneurs with real capital, real plans, and a real vested interest in the community and its values will stay and be successful. There is no need to throw out all the rules for, or give public money to out-of-town strangers with their empty promises of jobs, riches, and economic ripples. Mayor and Council have tried this approach before and the result has been vacant lots and boarded up buildings all over town—an outcome that leads me to the conclusion that we need MORE careful planning and processes, not less.

On the subject of community engagement, I think it’s fine to call a few public meetings and see who shows up (usually those with a specific interest, time or sometimes an agenda of their own). But REAL public engagement takes the discussion to the people where they live: schools, houses of worship, civic organizations, neighborhood associations, etc. Sixty public meetings sounds impressive, but just setting up in a room and posting a notice on a website will not result in an accurate representation of true public sentiment. All one has to do is compare the unenthusiastic results of the scientific poll commissioned by AATA (showing skepticism of county-wide transit and majority opposition to a new millage to support it) with the hyper-supportive feedback they say they’ve gathered from their recent meetings and their voluntary (and easily manipulated) online poll.