Comments on: Sept. 3, 2013 Ann Arbor Council: Final

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:32:55 +0000

I agree that localization is a good strategy for the future, but I'm not clear on how divestment from energy companies will achieve that. This recent article on divestment by colleges [link] discusses some of the subtler aspects of such policy, including the ability to work for change from within. Calpers is a pension fund that has a number of activist initiatives on this issue. Does the Council actually have any influence on which investments the pension fund board chooses, other than moral suasion?

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:16:58 +0000

Not divesting from FF companies demonstrates our inability to disengage from the larger failed economy and realize that localization is in our best interest. This piece about failing bridges (which will likely never be rebuilt, in spite of what the residents have been told), might make local critics of how the Stadium bridges reconstruction was handled feel a little better that it was done at all: [link]. At the same time, it might give us food for thought about what's in store for much of the country, including our own community in coming years.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 04:06:39 +0000

Perhaps Mr. Greden has reflected further upon his schedule.

By: Mark Koroi

Mark Koroi — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:11:24 +0000

It is great to see we have councilpersons raising conflict of interest issues and making robust arguments during the appointments process.

They should not be a rubber-stamp for mayoral nominations.

This is especially so given the recent problems and controversies with nominations to the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, the DDA, the Taxicab Board and the Planning Commission.

Conflict of interest issues should be at the forefront of these discussions.

Ann Arbor needs a vigorous ethics ordinance.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:41:27 +0000

@2: I wasn’t clear. I was referring to not including DTE only during the development of the program. Having a DTE rep in the room would likely influence the thinking and discussion by others out of deference to DTE’s presumptive expertise. Even without their presence there’s likely to be an undercurrent (npi) of ‘what will DTE let us do?’

I’m reminded of my experiences on city commissions when the conversation often turned to ‘what will council think?’, in part, I suspect, because of the presence of one or two council members who were voting members (as is, I believe, a DTE rep on the energy commission).

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:42:12 +0000

I attended an organizing meeting about the community solar concept. DTE must be involved because the payback is via net metering (DTE extends credits against the charges for electrical service). There is no electrical power generated for local use, only power that goes into the grid. DTE has a monopoly on electrical generation here and changes in both state law and regulatory decisions must be made for that to change.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:58:05 +0000

The failure of the resolution to divest from fossil fuel companies is unfortunate. There will be financial implications—negative ones—of not doing so. Of course, it would depend what was done with the proceeds of the sale of those funds. All stocks and most bonds will be dropping in value for several years or so. It’s already underway, as the stock market top was a month ago. I wouldn’t be surprised to see many smaller FF companies, and even a couple of the larger ones, go bankrupt within a few years.

I’d be interested in hearing the reasoning of those who voted against it. Or was their vote just based on feelings, i.e., fear?

We believe the irrational thought that if we don’t pursue MORE money we’ll not have ENOUGH of it, and so we enable and endorse the possible destruction of the biosphere.

The simple truth is that what we have right now is always enough. To believe otherwise is to argue with reality, which leads to stress and decisions that we will later learn from. (By that I mean the hard way.)

Getting back to the FF decision, what’s the alternative? One is to invest all that money into the reduction of energy use, which would have a much more positive return in social and environmental as well as financial terms.

“He says it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution.”

Slavery was an entire sector of the economy.

Why the solar initiative is proposed to involve DTE is interesting. I think doing something without their involvement would be more in the interest of Ann Arbor citizens.