So 30 years ago.

Yep who cares? It’s only money, it’s only assessing responsibility and asking questions to save tax dollars in the future. Yeah, who cares? Apparently not Ms. Lowenstein from her actions on the DDA and her statements here and in her charming The Ann commentary piece.

“In the meantime, no one at the DDA or the city has publicly asked the question: Aren’t light poles supposed to last longer than this? And who oversaw the original installation of steel posts resting flush on concrete?”

Some of the Victorian-ear lamp posts in London are still standing. How is it that the British (and other European cities) can erect street lamps that last 100+ years while Ann Arbors last only a few years and then rust out?

Who’s responsible for this?

Does the DDA have a secret handshake, too, to go along with its secret knowledge?

If I read you correctly, there is nothing going downtown that city staff can’t handle; you seem to say that it is council who is not up to the task of representing that part of their wards, the same way they handle the rest of their wards.

As to delegation of duties, for decades running the city of Ann Arbor has been delegated to the city manager. The question remains: why is the city manager not competent to manage this one part of town? One often hears reference to the secret knowledge required to repair sidewalks, erect planters and hire Republic Parking as long as these activities are in the center of town. No explanation of the nature of this knowledge is ever offered. If you have something to share about the uniqueness of the DDA beyond its powers of tax diversion, I for one would be glad to hear it.

PS Isn’t it unwise to even PASS a budget you do not understand?

“The idea that the DDA board is privy to additional information that gives it a keen understanding of downtown – beyond what’s available to a councilmember or any other member of the public – is, I think, simply laughable, and does not even warrant serious discussion.”

But I did not hear him say it, so thanks for clearing that up. An off-hand comment like that could end up decorating campaign signs of his opponent..

How many dis-elected city council members, having gained this more perfect understanding of the downtown, moved on (up?) to the DDA?

By the way, Dave, you left out a big one.

It’s up to the council to uphold its statutory obligation, quoted out in the article, to approve the DDA’s budget before the DDA board adopts its budget. So the council doesn’t revise the DDA’s budget, but rather sets it. So it’s entirely fitting and proper for the council to have undertaken the budgetary action it did on Monday night – to set the DDA’s budget – over the lone dissent of Christopher Taylor.

One value of having attorneys serve on appointed bodies is, Christopher Taylor has opined, that attorneys can “spot issues.” Yet this issue – the out-of-sequence budget approval process by the DDA – has gone unspotted apparently for at least a decade (not to mention Chapter 7 compliance). That’s despite an ample cadre of attorneys who’ve served in the past and on the present DDA board.

The idea that the DDA board is privy to additional information that gives it a keen understanding of downtown – beyond what’s available to a councilmember or any other member of the public – is, I think, simply laughable, and does not even warrant serious discussion.

Having covered the DDA board closely for five years, I would agree with the self-assessment of one current DDA board member: It is largely a reactive body, that responds to proposals that are brought before it – not a body that has a clear vision of projects it wants to undertake and a plan to complete them. When the city wanted to purchase the YMCA building, so that the AATA could not purchase it, the city leaned on the DDA, and the DDA responded. When the city wanted $8 million from the DDA to support the new Justice Center, the city leaned on the DDA, and the DDA responded. When the Ann Arbor Housing Commission approached the DDA with a request for a new roof, the DDA responded. The AATA comes and asks for $500,000 a year for an additional subsidy for commuter transportation, and the DDA responds. The city says to the DDA: You must use the tax you capture from the sidewalk millage to repair sidewalks in the DDA district, and the DDA responded. The DDA has always responded … by saying yes. The city now comes to the DDA and says: The light poles on Main Street are falling down, and we need close to $500,000 to fix them – and I expect the DDA will respond.

In the meantime, no one at the DDA or the city has publicly asked the question: Aren’t light poles supposed to last longer than this? And who oversaw the original installation of steel posts resting flush on concrete?