Comments on: AATA 5-Year Program: May 2013 Tax Vote?

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 10:25:28 +0000

I agree, thought they should drop the advertising some time ago. It detracts from their “brand” and is not all that profitable.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 02:00:54 +0000

If you added up the AATA staff time for RFP evaluation, Michael Ford’s time to write out his detailed response, AATA’s legal counsel’s time (which is probably not cheap) to attend this meeting, the cost of defending the lawsuit, and all other costs associated with the advertising contract, I wonder how that would compare to the $80,000 it will bring in. It seems like a lot of time, money, and effort on something that will bring in less than a third of a percent of the operating budget while detracting from the service AATA is paid to provide and greatly annoying at least some of the ridership.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:21:37 +0000

I am rather irked by David Nacht's comments. He has been a leader in the push to regionalize AATA, and this vision has its own legitimacy. But he leaps too far when characterizing this view in contrast to a "parochial view" as being the reason Ann Arbor is not in danger of being taken over by the state. When he says, "Let’s be connected in a way that we think is reasonable and fair, that works for people no matter what part of the county they live in." , he elides the differences in tax burdens that different communities carry. Mr. Nacht lives in Scio Township, which has an operating millage of 0.4942, in contrast to the city of Ann Arbor's operating millage of 10.1482. [link to .pdf]. In addition, Scio Township's population enjoy a much higher median income than most neighborhoods of Ann Arbor. Indeed, while Scio Township's median income (ACS 2010) is the fourth highest in the county ($88,947), the city of Ann Arbor's is the third from the bottom ($52,625), greater only than the two Ypsilanti communities. What this regional approach means to some extent is that costs are shifted rather than shared; residents of Ann Arbor's surrounding townships can enjoy all the advantages of amenities such as a regional transit system without paying the taxes required to maintain the metropolitan core which enables their success. Is that reasonable and fair?