Mayor Jane, Approximately
We’ll probably be voting for Republican Jane Lumm for mayor, mainly because she’s currently not the mayor. Looks like we’re not alone in flirting with the idea of going over to the scary A2 GOP. But we’re a little disappointed that her views on density differ so little from Hieftje’s.
What’s the deal with the recent criticism that Lumm’s campaign materials attempt to hide the fact that she’s a Republican? Last we checked, Hieftje doesn’t belong to the Tree Symbol party that you might gather he does from glancing at his yard signs.
My favorite bit of that article is Hieftje’s idea of “workforce housing”–$220k-$380k.
posted by Murph on October 11th, 2004 at 9:04 amMurph, if I recall you’re doing the UP thing now at UMich….dont’ you agree that the city missed it’s opportunity to build affordable housing about 20 years ago? It’s too late now, given the taxes and cost of construction in Ann Arbor.
That’s why that old AAIO post w/ the local developers roundtable had Shaffran saying something like “I hear about the desire for affordable housing and I want to laugh”.
It’s too late.
posted by todd leopold on October 11th, 2004 at 9:35 amI think the thought that it’s “too late” is a bit defeatist and short-term thinking. While massive, new $400k, sits empty forever, and don’t include many units. And in the long run, if there’s a large influx of units downtown, over time you’ll see a more diverse set of options open up as some buildings age and new buildings are put up. More housing is better in the long run. More downtown and (well-constructed) dense housing is best. The population in this area is projected to skyrocket, and if we don’t build up to meet the need, we all know where the development will happen.
posted by Scott T. on October 11th, 2004 at 10:18 amDepends on the workforce, doesn’t it?
Although, I suspect voting for a Republican in Ann Arbor is like throwing your vote away.
posted by Kozzie on October 11th, 2004 at 10:20 amI’m guessing that this may be before your time, but once upon a time, not very long ago (up until 2000, I think), Republican Ingrid Sheldon served as Ann Arbor’s mayor, and somehow the Earth managed not to crash into the sun. And a few of them are on the council.
posted by Geoff Brown on October 11th, 2004 at 11:29 am“I think the thought that it’s “too late” is a bit defeatist and short-term thinking.”
How is this a defeatist attitude? It is too late to build a unit in the downtown area that costs less than $220K. That’s a fact. The cost for housing will continue to go up as the citizens “think about the problem” or say “we need to fashion a commitee”.
The crisis for affordable housing has already passed the town by. Every move that the city makes tells you that the citizens are interested in increasing property value and “keeping the small town feel”. Here’s a short list:
1. Vote through a “greenbelt” plan, and then act baffled that thinking people want infill to go hand in hand with this plan….build up, lots of tall buildings, and fast.
2. Increase city taxes while gobbling up non-taxable land lots.
3. Frustrate local developers by using an endless stream of excuses as to why a certain project can’t go in their backyard.
4. Not use a regional master plan (Wash County actually just finished this little baby, and it will gather dust for years as AA ignores it).
I could go on and on, but I think most know how I feel about this subject.
It’s not that I’m angry that all of this is happening….it’s that I firmly believe that citizens in Ann Arbor don’t understand that their moves over the past years have guaranteed gentrification and sprawl….. and I’d like to think that this would bother most if they knew this.
posted by todd leopold on October 11th, 2004 at 11:56 amThe couple of them on the council tended to be good fiscal Republicans, something that I think is important to prevent abuses. But I certainly disagreed with a lot of what Sheldon did (and I think it was until ‘98 that she was Mayor. I could be wrong).
posted by js on October 11th, 2004 at 11:57 amAs far as development, I think that a lot of what is downtown is ossified, with little hope of being redeveloped. But I feel like an increase of density in areas like lower town could help take some of the pressure for affordable housing off of downtown, and give more offbeat businesses a place to thrive.
they want their small town feel but they want the benefits of a larger town. You can’t have it both ways as much as you try. The Greenbelt Initiative wasn’t a bad idea but they have to figure out some ways to bring some housing costs down. Of course, lower housing prices mean more riff raff.
Still…I like the idea that 200,000+ is affordable…
posted by Kozzie on October 11th, 2004 at 12:30 pmThere were two Republicanss on the City Council, there is now only one, Mike Reid, after Marcia Higgins switched parties from Republican to Democrat.
posted by tom on October 11th, 2004 at 1:12 pmOdd choice for today’s post, as I was just mulling over the concept of voting for Republicans for local offices (although Mr. Kestenbaum’s definitely got me locked up for County Clerk–any friend of IRV is a friend of mine). Everything I’ve been reading about Hieftje, both on this post and others, leads me towards the conclusion that he pretty much embodies nimby values in this town (I liked the abbreviation so much I’ve decided to start using it as an acronym). From what I hear, most of the Republicans in town, at least the ones in politics, seem to be social liberals, which certainly describes me, for the most part. Like js, though, I do worry about propping up the state GOP machine through county elections. I moved to Michigan during the final days of Engler, and from what I’ve heard, the guy was a walking disaster, so I don’t want that to happen again. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Also, I’ve yet to make up my mind on Proposal 1 and would love to hear others’ opinions at some point. Prop 2’s pretty self-explanatory but this one confuses the hell out of me. I’m from Louisiana and the gambling issue was just as controversial there a decade or so ago as it is here today. Any ideas?
posted by Lazaro on October 11th, 2004 at 5:03 pmProp 1- I’d also like to hear some more about it. Tentatively, I’m voting no, and here’s my reasoning. I agree with the meat of the bill, but not the exemptions. I don’t like the Detroit casinos, I don’t think that they were a good way to stimulate Detroit’s economy, and I don’t want them exempted from any legislation that gives local people a voice in development. So, in this case, I’m letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
posted by js on October 11th, 2004 at 7:11 pmOh, and if Prop 2 fails, on November 3rd, there’ll be homos at the door, forcibly marrying the straight folks, I tell you what.
posted by js on October 11th, 2004 at 7:12 pmWhich is a pretty good reason to vote against it.
Check out the wording of Prop 1 at http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw105499_20041011.htm. It’s really pathetic. I am voting no on Prop 1 because it appears to merely eliminate competition for the existing Detroit and Indian casinos. Check out the last line of the proposal. It reads “the voter approval requirement does not apply to Indian tribal gaming or gambling in up to three casinos in the City of Detroit.” Prop 1 specifically exempts the existing Detroit and Indian casinos from the restrictions it places on potential competitors, including the Michigan Lottery. It would not stop existing Detroit casinos from expanding or Indian casinos from adding additional gambling. Prop 1 only makes it more difficult for other casino and gambling interests to compete against the existing casinos. Vote no on Prop 1 unless you favor extending Constitutional exemptions from economic competition to special interests.
posted by Eric on October 11th, 2004 at 7:46 pmBack to Republicans and the state party. My impression of the state GOP is that West Michigan Republicans really control what happens (I was born and raised in Ottawa County - the Republican capital of the state). I don’t think they’d pay much attention to socially liberal Republicans in this area. Besides, lately the Republican Party has been be taken over by social conservatives and many Republicans have left fiscal conservatism by the wayside… further distancing many Ann Arbor Republicans from the rest of the party.
posted by paul on October 11th, 2004 at 9:38 pmEric, nice call.
The ads that were run for the Prop 1 proposal were laughable….it took all of 2 seconds to figure out why someone would bother spending money on the ads, and then it was only a matter of time before you figured out who it was. Mmmmm…corruption.
“Representative Democracy” is funnier than anything on screen or stage.
posted by todd leopold on October 12th, 2004 at 9:27 amThe casinos that already exist are a fait accompli. They’re a bad way to stimulate the economy (see also Atlantic City!), their presence virtually assures political corruption, and they make victims of the families of compulsive gamblers.
Proposal 1 would at least stop them from spreading to new areas. That’s a good thing even if the existing casinos make slightly more money. I’m voting Yes.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 12th, 2004 at 1:28 pmWhat’s IRV?
I really had no idea that there even was a Proposition 1. Thanks for the interesting discussion, everyone. Are there any more propositions?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 12th, 2004 at 1:52 pmThere’s the casino one that was mentioned. I’m not sure how to vote on that one but it sounds like it wants to return some degree of local control. Although, I’m pretty happy with just 3 non-Native American owned casinos.
Propisition 2 is going to amend the State Consitution to make Gay Marriage Illegal. Not sure what it says about partnerships (or whatever they are called).
posted by Kozzie on October 12th, 2004 at 2:02 pmIRV is Instant Runoff Voting, which means instead of picking a candidate you rank them. I’d into further detail, but people complain that it confuses people so I stick to the basics.
The argument for it is that it allows people to vote for 3rd parties without the spoiler effect, but a surprisingly large number of free-market conservatives are against increased political competition.
The main argument against that I’ve heard against is that its confusing, which seems odd considering the literacy required by most ballot proposals.
posted by George on October 12th, 2004 at 3:05 pmI do not support the casinos and I opposed creating casinos in Detroit. I am also skeptical of gambling as a strategy to stimulate the economy. But I do not agree with the creation of a constitutionally approved monopoly, especially when the beneficiaries are the existing casino interests who are backing this proposal. There’s no need for it anyway. The status quo does not need to be changed. Michigan is not threatened with a deluge of gambling if Prop 1 is not passed. And the passage of Prop 1 will not stop casinos from spreading to new areas. Remember that the existing interests receive an exemption. That means the casino that will be opening in your backyard after the passage of Prop 1 will just be owned by Mandalay Bay or MGM. Plus, supporting Prop 1 will impact the state lottery which supplies a percentage of the state’s school funding. School proceeds could decline if the lottery is hurt by an inability to change or expand.
posted by Eric on October 12th, 2004 at 3:54 pmEric…I agree 100%.
posted by todd leopold on October 12th, 2004 at 3:59 pmIRV explained, using the Muppets. Because everything is better with Muppets.
(I tend to be against it — and I’m speaking as somebody with a history of voting for third-party candidates, and as someone who plans to do so again this year — but that’s just me.)
posted by Shmuel on October 12th, 2004 at 4:01 pmI was a volunteer for Planned Parenthood at OutFest in Kerrytown a couple of weeks ago, and there was a lot of talk about Prop 2, which I obviously intend to oppose. Its declared object is to make gay marriage illegal, which, if I remember aright, it already is. This proposition will simply wire its illegality into the state constitution, just as the failed “Protection of Marriage” Act in Congress would have done for the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, many people, certainly a lot of the activists I know from P.P., are concerned that an amendment (a) is just an added insult on top of the dehumanization of gays as people and citizens and (b) will provide some sort of further legal basis for denying various benefits that derive from civil unions or partnerships. I would have voted against it out of principle anyway, but as with a lot of these right-wing legislative initiatives, there are always more hidden and sinister depths.
And Murph is right–Hieftje’s idea of “workforce” housing is hilarious. I forgot to mention that.
posted by Lazaro on October 12th, 2004 at 4:11 pmSchmuel….you’ll be overjoyed to know that I just put the Muppet Show 25th anniversary in the jukebox.
Childhood rocks.
posted by todd leopold on October 12th, 2004 at 4:40 pmOh, okay. We had instant runoff voting in Cambridge - just didn’t recognize the acronym. (Hi Shmuel!) It was pretty cool.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 12th, 2004 at 4:44 pmTodd, (getting back to the beginning of the thread), yeah, I’m in the MUP program. And no, I don’t think there’s going to be much at all in the way of *actually* affordable housing built in downtown anytime soon. (Partially, there’s the problem of trying to build affordable housing *new*. “Affordable” is what structurally sound older builders are there for…) I was more peeved by Hieftje calling this new expensive housing “workforce housing” than by the fact that they’re not building affordable housing.
posted by Murph on October 12th, 2004 at 8:49 pmGetting away from being annoyed by stupid politico-talk and into actual provision of affordable housing, I don’t think it’s impossible to create more of it in Ann Arbor.
1) I think that building lots of high-end housing in the downtown area (condos, townhouses, etc) will help–if you jack up the supply, so that the people willing to pay for high-end housing actually have high-end housing available, then the slumlords will lose the ability to charge high-end prices for student ghetto trashpits.
2) Accessory dwelling units (ADUs/”granny flats”) can help provide some affordable housing for the elderly, grad students, etc, as well as providing some extra income for the homeowner, making the main dwelling unit more affordable.
3) The University’s new dorm will do a little bit, in the same way as #1–releasing a small amount of the pressure on the housing market.
4) Re-plan (long range) Stadium, Washtenaw, and Plymouth as actual parts of the city, and not suburban sprawl wasteland that just happens to be within the city limits–upzoning those corridors can create a lot of capacity for new housing.
Really, a big part of the difficulty with building in A2 is that the zoning is so restrictive–if we preemptively upzoned various areas, it would make it much easier for developers to come in, and much harder for the OFW et al to shoot things down.
posted by Murph on October 12th, 2004 at 8:56 pmThe biggest problem with #2 is that it makes any other relationship arrangement intended to confer the benefits of marriage also unconstitutional.
posted by js on October 13th, 2004 at 10:02 amBye bye, same sex partnerships. Bye bye, civil unions.
Because we all know that once the hope of being treated equally is removed, all those damn homos will become heterosexuals and contribute to society. In fact, before the talk of civil unions, it’s a well known fact that there weren’t any homosexuals.
I’m always mystified why nobody ever brings up the HUGE conflict of interest in that Mayor Hieftje is also a realtor. As such, he should not take a public position on the “greenbelt” since that campaign is designed to keep property scarce and therefore prices high. Higher prices = higher commissions when he helps someone sell a property. I would vote against him for that reason alone, although I have other reasons too.
posted by Chico Panther on October 15th, 2004 at 2:56 pmSo, what are the main beefs with Mayor H. and his leadership? I’m actually more disappointed with Kim Groome, our pseudo-rep. I’d love to see our Ward put someone on Council who actually had business/development experience, since our side of town is due for some serious development in the near future….
Lifer
posted by Lifer on October 15th, 2004 at 5:21 pmWe oughta put up a slate of Council write-in candidates on the AAiO party ticket. The candidates in four of five wards are just beggin’ for some opposition, and if we’re going to be this cranky. . .
posted by Murph on October 17th, 2004 at 12:41 amReally, Lifer? I like Groome. I tend to agree with her views on a lot of things, including development. Sure, it’d be nice if she had more business experience, but I don’t see that as a huge detriment because I think she’s right on enough other things. I’d rather get rid of the other guy, Johnson, who I tend to think is a bit of a tool…
posted by js on October 17th, 2004 at 12:14 pmJane Lumm is anti-porch ban. And she doesn’t have a not-too-secret plan to “switch” offices with Chris Kolb when he gets term limited out in two years.
That’s enough reasons for me to vote for her right there.
Hieftje’s little scheme with Kolb makes it clear that he believes that he has some God-given right to hold elected office (ie: suckle from the public teat). While I have nothing against career politicians, I do have something against career politicians who think they hold office by right.
Dieu et mon droit indeed.
Hieftje is the little Louis XIV of Ann Arbor. The sooner we are rid of him the better.
And in the prosecutor’s race, Stanowski is running on platforms like increased rehabilitation and less jailing. And he doesn’t seem as likely to file baldly political charges against people his buddies don’t like, as Mackie has been known to do.
While I am voting mostly Democratic from Kerry to Kestenbaum, there are a few GOP types in local races that have better ideas and less sense of right to hold office for their own means. A2 Republicans aren’t scary — it’s a one-party system that is truly frightening.
IMHO.
posted by Dan on October 20th, 2004 at 1:18 pm