It was a product of my sitting through a Partnership Committee meeting in which this notion of sidewalks and parking lots as our downtown open space was promulgated in all seriousness. The post is a bit sarcastic, but I hope it will elucidate the point.

Ketchup at least contains lycopene.

My choice of words seems to have pressed Mr. Bean’s button. As Mr. Eaton sought to clarify, I intended to issue a call for people to communicate their concerns about where the DDA’s Leadership and Outreach Committee is headed with its “Connecting William Street” (CWS) recommendations. Anyone who would like to get a picture of what those recommendations will be can look at the CWS materials posted on the DDA website. [link] At the bottom of the page are links to powerpoint presentations that give a clear picture of the evolving development “scenarios.” These materials also provide a history of the public process and support Mr. Eaton’s point that it has been biased toward a particular, preordained outcome of dense development.

There are many points made by Ms. Lowenstein with which I take issue. I think I have been very fair in my characterization of both the DDA’s process and the recommendations which it is about to issue. It would be naive to accept Ms. Lowensein’s argument that we should reserve judgement until the final moment when the true, final recommendations are delivered to City Council. As Mr. Askins points out above, there may be minor tweaking of the language, but it is obvious that the general recommendations will be some form of what we have seen in DDA/LOC documents for months.

I am a member of the Library Green Conservancy that has tried to work constructively with the DDA throughout this process. As Mr. Eaton pointed out, we have come to the conclusion that the DDA wasn’t really interested in any point of view that did not conform to its preconceptions about what should happen with these five sites. We have a website if people are interested in the alternative views we have been offering. [link] While we have focused on the Library Lot, our group is interested in how all of these parcels will be developed. Indeed we’d like to see a more inter-connected and pedestrian oriented approach to planning for downtown development. Some of our members do want to see a public open space on top of the entire Library Lot. Others, including myself, are open to mixed use of the site. So far, the DDA has been unwilling to compromise and include anything approaching a true public open space on any of the five parcels in question. In a recent meeting Ms. Lowenstein commented that “a sidewalk is an open space.” Our group respectfully disagrees with that philosophy.

Actually, the point might be to ask, what is the DDA’s job? From the preamble to its charter renewal document in 2003, “the DDA has been a significant and influential catalyst behind the revitalization and renewal of downtown Ann Arbor.” That was my understanding of the role of DDAs in general – for revitalization of dying or threatened downtowns. It was not to press for extreme development or even to advance a particular plan of economic development.

Further quoting from that preamble: “Downtown Ann Arbor reflects our social and economic diversity. It provides a wide spectrum of residential, commercial and service offerings, from upscale to funky, including homegrown and one-of-a-kind businesses, buildings, and a multitude of social gathering opportunities.”

Is that where we are heading with this process?

Re (7) I agree that there are various opinions about what a robust public process should include which is demonstrated by the divergence between my view and that of Marvin Face.

The importance of the public process is that eventually a decision will be made by Council. It is hard to believe that sale of any of these CWS properties can be accomplished over the popular opposition of the electorate. I suggest that the arts millage, library bond and countywide transit plan all demonstrate the divergence between the views of downtown-insiders and City residents in general.

The sale of any City property will require 8 votes on Council. While the DDA process will have the support of the selected “experts” it may fall short of the super majority Council vote required for the sale of city owned land. A properly conducted public process would have provided a means of building broader support for whatever recommendations are made by the DDA.

@12: “plus expert planning opinions, plus expert economic opinion”

These, the economic ones especially, have the potential to lead to overreaching (or at least unrealistically high hopes). The global financial situation is evolving rapidly into deeper depression, and the economic analysis in use by CWS and the DDA is both out of date (based on a brief countertrend) and oblivious to that situation. But then, I’m no “expert” and perhaps am seen as one of those “usual sources”.

@14 again: I think your “flaw” assessment supports Alan’s point. The DDA is doing it’s job. As long as it exists, the challenge for residents will continue to be in countering its influence with those council members who don’t question its role vis a vis the interests of the city as a whole.

I attended a number of meetings early on in the parcel project and heard the same point expressed by Ms. Lowenstein a number of times: public process that gives undue weight to the relatively small number of active, engaged citizens who are heard from on many subjects is to be avoided. The solution was to have a handpicked board of “experts” and programmed survey vehicles that screened out unwelcome responses.

The truth is that most citizens simply do not have the time or interest to attend every public gathering, but that does not mean they don’t have heartfelt opinions. It is indeed difficult to construct a process that allows for true public input. I think that the City of Ann Arbor planning staff did a pretty decent job on the Area, Height and Planning revisions. Unfortunately some of the revised recommendations based on that input were overruled by council. I think this also happened on the A2D2 process.

The flaw in the DDA process that is most evident is that the board repeatedly expressed a bias from the beginning, and has done everything to assure that results supported that bias. That includes an emphasis on the most massive development possible, and a total dismissal of any downtown park.

What we really need is a community conversation about the role of the downtown in our civic lives as city-wide residents. Is it an engine for economic development, defined as attracting non-retail business with a primarily office land use? Is it a tourist haven that townies never visit? Is it a place offering a range of services that city residents can use, from restaurants to shopping to insurance and key-cutting? Is it a central gathering place where we meet city-wide neighbors in festivals and public events of all kind? Or is it a bank of real estate development land to generate taxable value for the DDA? That seems to be their motive.

We need to decide what the true public benefit of these changes in downtown is to be.