Ah, Bohemia
The Ann Arbor City Council is finally going to do something about the pervasive problem of couch-throwing. If you’ve ever been hit by a steel-frame couch during those student riots that tend to happen around the city, you know the feeling. “Not again,” we thought last time it happened to us, watching the whole thing unfold in slow motion as another tattered plaid Sealy sofabed exploded from the careless arm of an LSA sophomore in our direction.
The resolution, which would ban indoor furniture outdoors, may also make the neighborhoods prettier, but in the City Council’s unquenchable zeal to protect the citizens of this town, they probably never even thought of that.
Seriously, why are couches on porches ever even considered a problem? How is it different than having a bench or lawn chairs on your porch? As for the ugliness factor, you could just as easily have a really beat-up outdoor wicker chair as an decently-maintained couch. I think a couch on a porch is a comfortable thing that only helps build community by encouraging folks to spend time relaxing in that fine transitional space between the public and private realms known as the porch. Now, in Boulder they actually often DID have riots and burned couches, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue here whatsoever. Ugh. I’ve been drinking box-wine, I’ll shut up now.
posted by Brandon on February 20th, 2004 at 2:35 amIt’s about passing unenforceable laws to protect the stupid fools (drunken frat boys) from themselves in the name of “community standards”.
You also know that the midwest is a couple of years behind the rest of the country, so what was popular in Boulder last year will be here come this football season.
Go back to your wine now. I don’t suppose it was White Zinfandel?
posted by poop shoot on February 20th, 2004 at 6:58 amI STILL DON’T GET IT.
COLLEGE STUDENTS HAVE COUCHES ON PORCHES BECAUSE THEY CAN”T AFFORD LAWN FURNITURE.
IF PEOPLE DON”T LIKE HOUSES WITH COUCHES ON THE PORCH:
DON”T MOVE TO A COLLEGE TOWN!
DON”T MOSVE TO A COLLEGE TOWN!
DON”T MOVE TO A COLLEGE TOWN!
I think it might evenw ork as a syllogism:
a)There are people who donot like to live in towns where other residents have couches on the porch.
posted by Lucky Jackson on February 20th, 2004 at 10:19 amb)College towns often contain residents who put couches on their porch
Therefore,
People descirbed in premise a will not like to live in college towns.
Naw, White Zin would be a little too classy. “Burgundy” from a box.
posted by Brandon on February 20th, 2004 at 12:14 pmYour Grandma, yes or no?
Anna?
posted by ilya on February 20th, 2004 at 3:55 pmThis is obviously a case of activist legislators run amok. If we don’t nip this in the bud in AA, pretty soon politicians will force people in rural Kentucky and Appallachia to pick up the garbage and discarded furniture from their front porches as well.
posted by Nick on February 20th, 2004 at 4:04 pmuh oh. The couch issue again?
More (Ypsi) rock band and (Ypsi) bar gossip
AAIO has become highly overrated.
Ho hum
posted by mucho gusto on February 20th, 2004 at 8:56 pmBrandon is right. People hanging out on couches on the summer and chatting on porches is a pleasant thing to have around. Ann Arbor seems determined to legislate the last few vestiges of its onetime “bohemian” rep out of existance and recreate itself as a Mayberry-Levittown hybrid. Overall impression: provincial.
posted by Laura on February 20th, 2004 at 9:59 pmAAIO = overrated
KZoo = provincial
Anna = out to lunch
Google = go to girlfriend?
posted by ilya on February 21st, 2004 at 12:04 amAt Penn State, they were throwing couches (from inside of apartments) off of balconies for burning on Beaver Ave.(”Beaver Canyon”). Isn’t Ann Arbor city council aware of the imminent danger of having indoor furniture INSIDE?
posted by Amy on February 21st, 2004 at 3:00 amI realize I’m in a very small minority in that I find the porch couches really ugly, but I did want to say something about Laura’s comment re: AA’s “bohemian” rep: folks, if you think the town lacks a bohemian feel, it’s not because it doesn’t have enough urine-soaked furniture on its porches - it has more to do with the $800/month apartments, the lousy expensive food, and the near-total lack of local arts and culture. I know it’s harder to address those things than to surround campus with blocks upon blocks of urban blight, but it might be worth considering.
Also, as a side note, there is kind of a mixed message in the local sense of decor - this is the only self-declared progressive community I’ve ever seen where people celebrate their love of the environment by covering their lawns and porches in trash and discarded furniture. Again, just a thought.
posted by Nick on February 21st, 2004 at 7:10 amNick, I live in the OWS. Over here the only trash and discarded furniture is on recycle and trash day. If there is any such “decoration”, it’s in front of student rentals. Frankly, the worst areas of town are the student “ghettoes” and no matter how much The Daily whines about the mess being the faut of property owners, it’s the students fault for being spoiled litterbugs who think their shit doesn’t stink.
If you owned rental property would you spend any more than the minimum $$ if all your tenants did was trash the place and leave their mess in the front yard?
You need to get out of your cocoon and expore the rest of the city to see the difference between the responsible folks and the irresponsible self centered students who have made their own ghetto.
From where I stand, I cannot, in any sense of the word, and for the last 20 years, call students “progressive”.
posted by mucho gusto on February 21st, 2004 at 8:24 amNick - you said ” and the near-total lack of local arts and culture” then your not looking around. I was at a great opening on friday 13th. There is plenty art around here, just look (start with the current)
Now, as to couches, I recently burnt a wicker couch, it went up in a huge flame, while it did burn out quickly, it made a ‘indoor couch’ burning look like a small fire. So outdoor couches are more dangerous than indoor ones, IMHO. Box springs are really hard to burn (and no matter how hard you try clean it out first there are bits of plastic in there). Indoor couches and stuffed chairs suck to burn cause they always have nasty stuff, especially if you burn the seats. Uh, Hi, I’m Just a Voice, and I’m a pyromaniac, or at least like a good bonfire.
Oh, yah, the coolest porch chair ever in ann arbor was a giant lounger chair with armrests made all out of Milk Crates
posted by Just a Voice on February 21st, 2004 at 1:54 pmAnn Arbor has catered to the elitist community too long and has lost most of its character in the 23 years I have lived here. Frankly I am not sure it is the same town.
To call Ann Arbor politicians liberal is a real stretch.
The thing that really annoys me is that we can spend so much energy on stupid issues like couches on porches but address the fact that in this “wonderful town” we have many more homeless each year, no real employment options and a growing community of people who either feel their shit doesnt stink or perhaps they are a little overly retentive.
Sadly Ann Arbor is a nice place to drive through but it really sucks to live here.
posted by Michael French on February 21st, 2004 at 3:40 pmAAIO is definitely NOT overrated!! Keep us amused and informed…
posted by ausra on February 21st, 2004 at 11:37 pmAnybody interested in a meet up?
posted by about time on February 21st, 2004 at 11:41 pmAnn Arbor is simply following East Lansing’s lead on this.
In East Lansing, where MSU students are about three-quarters of the adult population, the sharp decline in student voter participation has led to city politics being dominated by anti-student fanatics. And they have gone after outdoor couches with a passion.
Unenforceable? You obviously haven’t heard the news from East Lansing. An outdoor couch there leads pretty directly to eviction of all the tenants, and a permanent ban on the property ever again being rented to students. That is only a slight exaggeration.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 22nd, 2004 at 12:30 amAnna/AAOI
A-squared is certainly OR-squared.
Perhaps you have fewer than two balls.
Your silence speaks volumes.
Do I have to go to AP (uh - Associated Press?) for answers?
I am a man of many questions - but Google does provide many answers. You don’t seem to be getting it.
I’ll be here.
Ilya
posted by ilya on February 22nd, 2004 at 1:19 amSorry, meant AAIO vice AAOI.
But the message remains the same, AAIO is O.
All your subscribers seem to exude personal failure (perhaps following your lead). That’s sad for M grads.
posted by ilya on February 22nd, 2004 at 1:26 amI have subscribers? Okay, pay up, guys.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 22nd, 2004 at 2:49 amIlya, you should start AAIOIO. Also, I can’t stand Television Without Pity, and I’d really like to see someone start Television Without Pity Without Pity.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 22nd, 2004 at 3:01 amIlya, I’m flattered by your apparent obsession. Your coded messages read like Dr. Seuss, which is sorta fun. Wanna go out sometime? I’ll treat, if you promise some indoor/outdoor barfing. Love, Anna
posted by Anna on February 22nd, 2004 at 9:29 amSorry, Ilya, maybe I exude personal failure, but I’m not an M grad. Never even been an M student.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 22nd, 2004 at 11:41 amAch, ilya is not worth paying attention to. Back to couches. What about outdoor furniture like a table or a wooden chair? Is that indoor or outdoor? Also, does anyone know the names of the city council members who are spearheading this pressing civic issue?
posted by Laura on February 22nd, 2004 at 11:53 amLaura, That’s easy for you to say. Not all of us have many Internet suitors; especially those with the sleuthing skills of Ace Ventura, the literary talents of Dr. Seuss, and the good looks of Beevis & Butthead.
On a couches note, I’m not at all surprised. Honestly, AA does have some real problems to deal with, as others have pointed out — especially homelessness and the lack of economic opportunity for people in their 20s and 30s — don’t they have more important things to worry about?
Does Ann Arbor law allow for a recall campaign?
posted by Anna on February 22nd, 2004 at 12:05 pmAny pubic official in Michigan (except judges) is subject to recall. It requires the signatures of 25% of the voters in his or her constituency (where “voters” is the number of votes for Governor in the last gubernatorial election).
In practice, this is a colossal signature requirement, and it is made even more difficult by the requirement that all the signatures must be obtained during a period of no longer than 90 days. Only a truly enraged citizenry (or a wealthy malcontent) could possibly organize the collection of this many signatures in such a short time.
Further, there is a social class bias in recalls. Middle-class and upper-middle-class people tend to vote against recalls on some kind of principle, even when they agree with the recall on substance. Hence, successful recalls usually happen in blue-collar or working class jurisdictions.
Judges are not subject to recall in Michigan, but they are subject to discipline, including suspension from office, by the Judicial Tenure Commission.
In any case, I certainly don’t think this is an issue which justifies a recall.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 22nd, 2004 at 12:39 pmErm, I meant PUBLIC official. Yikes, how embarrassing.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 22nd, 2004 at 12:40 pmTo sum up Larry’s points, only a mighty crotchety citizenry could recall a pubic official.
posted by Laura on February 22nd, 2004 at 1:00 pmIf pure idiocy isn’t grave enough to warrant a recall, I don’t know what is.
posted by Anna on February 22nd, 2004 at 7:26 pmAnna, I don’t think this can be called “pure idiocy”. Idiocy would imply that the council members can’t figure out where the heck all this furniture is coming from.
I’d bet they’re completely aware of where the furniture is coming from (e.g. students), as well as completely aware of where their votes come from (non-students), and therefore acting on the demands of the latter to crack down on the former.
In short, it’s not “idiocy”, it’s an agenda.
posted by Murph on February 23rd, 2004 at 1:58 pmNo, “idiocy” implies that they aren’t able to tell the difference between important issues (like homelessness and economic development) and unimportant issues (like porch furniture).
posted by Anna on February 23rd, 2004 at 2:34 pmActing on homelessness (which they did, to a limited extent, in contributing $1 million toward building the Delonis Center) required defiance of their constituencies. Acting on porch furniture is being responsive to the demands of their constituencies.
Anyone in politics has to strike a balance between doing necessary but unpopular things, and unnecessary but popular things.
Moreover, city governments routinely deal with the whole mess of mundane day-to-day stuff that seems laughably trivial in the abstract, but is deadly serious to people who are directly affected. When somebody is on the phone screaming about how the trash collectors threw their garbage can lids across the street AGAIN, you (if you’re on city council) don’t get to calmly explain that they’re wrong, let alone hang up. Not if you want to be taken seriously and re-elected.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 23rd, 2004 at 3:13 pmWell, Mr Kestenbaum, future politician, how do you explain Mayor Hieftje’s stacking the planning commission with his buds, reducing the developable (read taxable) land by kowtowing to a few NIMBY jerks (read The Bluffs and Dickens thicket) to the detriment of the city (read overtaxed property owners) as a whole?? He built the myth of his “environmentalism” based on political sloganeering (read “Nature and neighborhoods”) and lying to city employees and the public (read no layoffs, no new taxes, and no reduction in city services)
Isn’t his constituency the entire city of A2 and not some loose cannon so called environmentalists (read Doug Cowherd)?
Hieftje’s nothing more than a political opportunist. Witness the trial balloon he floated regarding his possible ascension to the Michigan Statehouse.
He’s not interested in Ann Arbor future. He’s only interested in his future as a realtor who stands to profit from rising home prices in the city and a politician who wants to feed his ego by moving up the ladder to the big revolving door in Lansing.
posted by mucho gusto on February 23rd, 2004 at 4:24 pmOkay, Larry, good point — the idiocy extends to the voters who put them in place.
I don’t like my garbage cans tossed into the road (as they are regularly by our public works department), nor am I particularly fond of porch couches, myself. However, I just can’t imagine a world with so few problems that a law against either of those things should be at the top of anyone’s agenda.
posted by Anna on February 23rd, 2004 at 4:42 pmMucho, I confess to being a past and present politician. I have been a county commissioner, candidate for city council, and candidate for state rep. I’m running this year for county clerk and register of deeds.
I am not close to the mayor, and he hasn’t returned my calls recently. But a job like mayor carries with it a certain sense of urgency, since incumbent mayors tend to use up their political capital and get tossed out by the voters. Except for the Sheldon/Hieftje transition, every Ann Arbor mayor in many years defeated his or her predecessor. Same pattern in other cities, like Lansing and Ypsilanti. Mayors are visible and get blamed for everything.
One of the ways mayors get chewed up and spit out is to have their critics in positions of city power. Liz Brater would have lasted a lot longer if it hadn’t been for Peter Nicolas and Kurt Zimmer on city council blasting away at her day after day. Of course mayors like to avoid the appearance of internal bickering and disorder by appointing their allies to posts like the planning commission.
I’m not happy with everything he has done, either, but I don’t agree that he is motivated primarily by greed. With his skills, he could be out there making enormously more money as a realtor than he does as mayor.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 23rd, 2004 at 5:37 pmMucho, I’d like one example of a politician that once having been elected doesn’t act to mollify their political base and work at extending their power. Outside of a benevolent dictatorship, it’s impossible to regard politics and not regard the exercize of power. And since the goal of power is to keep the power that is posessed while growing more power in other areas, you’re coming across as a bit naive. The best thing to do is to pick politicians that you believe will exercize their power in your interest, and discard them as soon as they fail to do so.
posted by js on February 23rd, 2004 at 7:38 pmjs
Anna, I still don’t think it can be considered “idiocy”, even on the part of people who think that the couch on the porch across the street is so ugly that there ought to be a law against all couches on all porches everywhere. It’s either an agenda, in the case of people who are pushing things strategically to reach a desired system (like Doug Cowherd or the anti-student OFWers), or simply messed-up priorities, in the case of people who think that we need to pass laws about how many pets you can have and how long you can leave them alone, because that’s the most pressing issue we have in front of us. Either way, we can say they’re wrong, but we can’t say they’re idiots. They’re only idiots if they approach their goals in a manner that reduces their chances of realizing their goals. If they’re successful, it points to savviness, no matter how ridiculous the goal. Maybe we should try “madness” as a substitute for “idiocy”.
On the other hand, maybe we can simply agree that it’s ridiculous, regardless of what other words we feel like applying, and work on doing something about it? I mean, obviously all y’all feel like something can/should be done about this stuff. Otherwise you wouldn’t be wasting your time complaining; you’d be trying to finish your degrees as fast as possible or jobhunting in an attempt to escape.
posted by Murph on February 24th, 2004 at 11:11 amI have never voted for a Republican. That includes Hieftje
All I can say is no shit to your totally obvious comments, js
I guess you’re a political science major
posted by mucho gusto on February 24th, 2004 at 12:45 pmWe can revise the definition of “idiocy” if you prefer and substitute “moronic”, but that’s as far as I’m going, Murph
And I don’t know if the comment about complaining versus finishing up degrees fast enough to high-tail it out of AA was meant to apply to me, but I did actually do the latter before doing the former. I guess I have messed up priorities, too.
-A.
posted by Anna on February 24th, 2004 at 1:26 pmMucho, you’re the one railing against all politicians, instead of seeing them as a necessary evil. I only pointed out the obvious since you seemed so slow on the uptake.
posted by js on February 25th, 2004 at 9:21 amjs
Some are necessary and good, some are evil…
Hieftje’s evil and unnecessary. He’s a liar.
And Larry K, Da Mayor isn’t so much greedy as much as he’s an egomaniac
posted by mucho non grata on February 26th, 2004 at 5:51 pmHey, no argument there.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on February 27th, 2004 at 1:35 amdear ann arbor,
posted by riconqueso on March 4th, 2004 at 2:34 pmyou would not be in existence if it tweren’t for us students. i will keep my lazy boy on my stoop.
AA can suck my d-hole,
sr. queso