It is a stretch to call what came out of A2D2 as “the zoning laws we’ve agreed to as a community.” More like, “Zoning laws rammed down the throat of the community”. The present outcry over 413 Huron – and revulsion over The Varsity – do not indicate that most people had any idea what council was up to. My exposure to A2D2 had the same flavor as the recent Connecting William Street “process”: the existence of public forums looked mainly like cover for pre-determined outcomes.

As to Mr. Hathaway, your characterizations of his behavior and attitude suggest that you are not at all familiar with his actual work. I myself am not aware of anyone who has behaved more civilly, more rationally, more respectfully, more gently persistent in the face of the amount of dissembling, disrespect, and deliberate mis-information displayed by the DDA crew. Will kept the focus on process and ideas. As he was unafraid to confront inappropriate behavior, he never used that as an occasion for character assaults on or the mocking of individuals (unlike some who comment in public from time to time…).

Many of us would do well to follow his example – starting with me. Partly as a result of watching Will, I have undertaken a renewed commitment to civility and respect when disagreeing with people (I have a ways to go).

I’m not aware of any “council members who are overtly whipping this irrational “more parks” contingent into a frenzy”. There are only 11 council members: which one has been demagoguing The Mob into oral foam? Looks to me like people are bringing their own passion to this debate, without the help of anyone on council.

Eco Bruce,

The word “Develop” can apply to parks, as well as to buildings. If the intent from the start was simply to advocate the maximum floor space possible (that is, to “Develop” downtown, in the sense that the DDA seems to use that word), what was the point of public input? Indeed, it takes no process at all to simply say “Build baby, build”. What was the point of having any process at all? Having created process, and sought public input, what was the point of leaving most public input out of the final report?

Recently, the AAHC got a $300k grant from the DDA. Thanks, but AAHC claims they are short $14.5 million to complete needed capital improvements:

[link]

“Locally, the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s own study found $14.5 million in deferred capital needs, which equals $40,374 per unit.

But the commission is getting less than $500,000 a year from HUD to invest in capital improvements, or about $1,224 per unit. At that rate, Hall said, it would take 33 years to address today’s needs, assuming no other repairs are needed in the future.”

If everyone (who actually knows what the DDA do) were behind the actions of the DDA, that would be one thing but most engaged citizens seems to see the DDA as self-perpetuating tool of out-of-town developers.

I voted in the DDA survey as well and the three choices were all slightly different variations on the same theme- large buildings. Voting for the smallest set hardly represented my view on what should be done but obviously NOT voting is not seen as any sort of protest. 2000 votes?

Density can be increased with the same sort of buildings we have along Main Street- retail at street level with 2-3 floors of apartments above. Look how fast those apartments get gobbled up when they come on the market. And they are future-proof. Walking up 2-3 flights of stairs in a blackout is doable (people take for granted an endless, unbroken, fresh flow of cheap electricity), walking up 14 floors is not. That was not an option offered.

There’s nothing mystical about how the buildings that people in Ann Arbor LIKE were built. We still have the technology, but if the lots are offered to out-of-town developers, they will max out those lots in the cheapest possible way.

I believe the resolution is an appropriate search for the middle ground. Many of us believe that it is well past time to dissolve the DDA. It has accomplished the goal of revitalizing the downtown and seems only to seek more TIF revenues and seems to pursue an agenda at odds with voter wishes.

I recognize that others support the actions of the DDA that address matters well beyond the downtown area. Should the DDA be the entity that makes important affordable housing decisions? Should the DDA be funding projects outside its identified area of authority? Should the DDA be authorized to spend money generated by the ever increasing parking fees?

Stephen Kunselman has not proposed dissolution. Instead, he is looking at changes that will mildly restrain the DDA. I think his resolution is a good start. If his actions moderate the authority of the DDA, perhaps it will be unnecessary to completely dissolve the DDA. If the changes are not adopted or if they are unsuccessful, we may need to take a look at pulling the plug on the DDA.

It seems that many Ann Arbor residents have no knowledge of what the DDA does, and many have not heard of it.

Here are some opinions I’ve heard from people who have an actual understanding of the current DDA’s role:

–an unelected body should not be making policy

–it’s main function is to push development for development’s sake

–many Michigan towns with serious economic problems and dead downtowns need DDA’s – not Ann Arbor

–the DDA wants to encourage changes like those that are stripping the downtown of its character

–the DDA is taking taxes which should be used for the real needs of the city’s residents, and administered by the city council (only)

Thank you Will Hathaway for shedding light on “the determined bunch who are very invested in their fantasy of downtown Ann Arbor…” I can imagine how empowered that bunch is by our largely unengaged citizenry.

The whole process, as outlined in the Council resolution, was designed to bring development proposals to the City Council.

And yes, I am somewhat anonymous, mostly to avoid the personal attacks from those that don’t agree with me.