I will never forget the comments made by Robert Venturi or one of his people who came to town to see the stadium before the halo, that the City of Ann Arbor was the “backyard” of the University.

We’re nobody’s backyard, yet the UM continues to think so.

With regard to the Council’s consideration of the resolution informing the University of the Council’s dislike of the billboard, I think this is the appropriate manner to accomplish such communication. As a trusted community voice recently told me, the City Council communicates through its resolutions. No one Council member, or group of Council members can purport to communicate on behalf of the Council. The Council as a whole can only speak through resolutions that have majority support.

While it is unlikely that the University of Michigan will remove the billboard merely because the City Council expresses its opinion on the subject, expressing that opinion could well be part of a broader campaign. The University wants community support. Our dislike of the sign and the opinions expressed by alumni may eventually result in its removal. This is what happened to the ugly “halo” and hopefully what will happen with this feature, too.

Also, I note that the standard dictionary definition regard it as a singular term. I think the community viewshed is actually the integral of all viewsheds in the community.

And the sign doesn’t just violate the new sign ordinance, it violates the original ordinance, the one the rest of us have had to obey since the 1960s.

I am unwilling to accept this legal conclusion in any event.