Talking Points Memo
The Friends of the Ann Arbor Greenway offer a list of talking points for those on their mailing list who intend to send letters to the News:
Good letter themes include:
- the recreational benefits of a Greenway; the beauty if [sic] would bring to
the downtown area,
- support for the “radical” idea that City Council should hold public
hearings so that citizens - not just the DDA - can speak about their
visions of the downtown area,
- there is zero public greenspace in the downtown area; the Greenway
proposal would mean less than 1% of the greater downtown area would be
dedicated to parks,
- there will be massive redevelopment of hundreds of other sites that will
produce density and housing - the Greenway provides balance, not conflict
with increased density,
- token parks that are called “a greenway” provide no balance, just a
public relations smokescreen for a maximum development plan.
Massive development of hundreds of other sites? Where? On the moon?
posted by js on May 3rd, 2005 at 3:51 pmZero public greenspace? Well, let us bulldoze the OWS and start it there then.
Arrgh. Y’know, just seeing this crap makes me want giant towering glass and steel edifices to thwart their hippy bullshit.
The problem with parks is that they result in loitering Ann Arbor residents - who wants to see the various fat Michiganders laying around, talking to each other, breeding? The idea is disgusting: Parks? No thanks.
What really pisses me off, though, is that Ann Arbor is FULL of parks. If downtown doesn’t have a park - why not take your fat ass and go to the Arb? Is this not enough of a park for you? Or the various parks that exist south of Main Street in the Old West Side? Not park enough for you? How about the fucking chain of parks that goes all the way to Dexter - that dump of a town. No. Not enough parks in Ann Arbor.
These people make me want to vomit.
posted by Dr.Mandrake on May 3rd, 2005 at 4:10 pmso, in other words,
(1) the downtown area needs an absence of buildings to be beautiful or conducive to recreation.
(3) downtown, a historic concentration of buildings and activity, lacks forcibly mandated green space. all those scary buildings haven’t been so bad for the city. now, how did that get past us these 179 years?
(4)
a. of course, those hundreds of massive redevelopments are as-yet imaginary, and besides, who’s to say our new and ambitious anti-growth groups won’t mobilize against them should the blueprints come raining down from the sky.
b. “balance, not conflict” here refers to the glossy verdant buffer separating assessment-conscious OWS neighbors from the looming canyons of the “massively dense” imagainary downtown.
(5) compromise is for weaklings. fight to the bitter, divisive end.
posted by dan faichney on May 3rd, 2005 at 5:21 pmThe greenway is just a scam to get the parks. Anyone with any sense can see that the RR right of way is not large enough for the train, the OWSiders promenading to the Olde Shoppes of Ann Arbour, and the snoozing homeless.
Just wait for the compromise when they offer to give up on the greenway in return for “only” the three parks.
posted by KBlow on May 3rd, 2005 at 7:09 pmOh my! Those damn hippies and their damn parks! Jeez, who needs ‘em?
posted by Matt Hampel on May 3rd, 2005 at 8:00 pmWon’t we all thank them when we arrive once again at a prehistoric, agrarian society?
posted by anselm on May 3rd, 2005 at 8:43 pmOr mebbe the greenway fanatics could abandon their hopeless plan and simply move to Ypsi, where smack in the center of town we have a giant greenway-style park (linked to Frog Island and a skip away from Waterworks Park) which hosted a big classic car show last weekend. Just a thought.
posted by tadpole on May 4th, 2005 at 12:03 amHow are the greenway activists going to get access to the train tracks “right of way”? I still haven’t read anything from them about this. I guess we’ll find out at the scheduled council review in mid June?
My father-in-law used to be a corporate railroad lawyer, and I talked to him recently about the proposed greenway. According to him, a railroad through a city generally has at least a 50 foot right of way (25ft either side of the center of the track). In more ‘rural’ area, railroads have a 100 foot right of way. These areas are established both for safety (i.e. in case a train car derails) and for drainage (because tracks usually require large ditches on either side for drainage). He didn’t see how you could establish a walking path directly alongside a working railway in a city setting.
He dealt with cases occasionally where somebody would accidentally build something within the right-of-way, although I believe these were mostly in rural settings, and were somewhat ‘accidental’ (i.e. a corner of a backyard swimming pool extended into the 100 foot right of way). The railroad would usually settle with the person, having them sign a waiver, and maybe paying a lease fee.
He did mention a ‘rails for trails’ act in which old unused railways are converted into walking trails, although I understand that the AA railway is very much still in use. Apparently the ‘rails for trails’ act keeps the railway path ‘intact’ as a walking trail (and not split up among various landowners). That way it wouldn’t be too legally ‘messy’ to build a railway line along the same route in the future, if that was ever required. Still, I don’t see that happening in the case of the AA railway.
posted by Peter on May 4th, 2005 at 8:48 amYpsi sucks. Don’t move there. The people are fat gross and stupid and anyone who moves there morphs that way. The parks are full of trash and bums. There are no festivals.
posted by Ypsidweller on May 4th, 2005 at 9:00 amYd, I’d be singing the same tune to keep out the Ann Arbourites.
posted by Dale on May 4th, 2005 at 9:35 amPersonally I like the greenway as an idea. It makes sense that there be no development in a floodway. The sticking points for me are (1) that the greenway advocates are demanding that the entirety of the city-owned properties be ceded to the greenway, even if parts of them aren’t in the floodway (i.e. they could be developed); and (2) that the greenway advocates have no plan on how to deal with the fully operational railroad tracks that go through the proposed greenway. I’d also like to see a vision of what the greenway would be. Would it be green lawn? in that case, it’s little better than paving the whole thing. If it’s made up of trails and native plants, especially wetlands and meadows, I’d be much more in favor of it - but it would look ‘messy’ to suburban eyes, and also require a good deal of $$ to plant and maintain. It sounds to me like the greenway advocates are saying ‘leap first, then we’ll figure it out’, and I just can’t get behind setting aside so much city property when there isn’t a good plan for it.
Besides which, the very obvious first step to me is to make it illegal, through our zoning ordinance, to construct any buildings in a floodway - any floodway. Right now the Feds will let you build an office building or other non-residential building, as long as you buy flood insurance. To me it’s crazy to incur these costs, and have to rebuild when there is a flood.
posted by KGS on May 4th, 2005 at 10:32 amWhy can’t the dirty hippies go walk the fuckin tracks now? I’ve done it hundreds of times.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 10:56 am“If it’s made up of trails and native plants, especially wetlands and meadows, I’d be much more in favor of it - but it would look ‘messy’ to suburban eyes, and also require a good deal of $$ to plant and maintain.”
I couldn’t agree more….but this isn’t what a garden-variety “environmentalist” pictures when they think of a sustainable greenway.
I still say that all of this talk of a “floodplain” has headed into the paranoid range. Isn’t it design overkill to not put in a structure that won’t likely last for 75 years because of a theoretical event that only happens every 100 years? When FEMA put together their floodplain critera, don’t you think that they were thinking of the Missisippi river floodplain rather than some piddly creek that flashfloods to the tune of a few feet for an hour or so? If you build a basement there, you may have a problem, but otherwise……
The Southeast corner of our building is literally two inches from being in the floodplain. We couldn’t build a greenhouse in the south parking lot because of this silliness. Nothing’s worse then getting water near plants, I suppose……
posted by todd on May 4th, 2005 at 11:17 am100 year floods occur all the time, not every 100 years.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 11:41 amTodd, there are a few misconceptions in what you wrote above. Let me see if I can explain.
First, there is a difference between a floodplain and a floodway. A floodplain is the outer edge of what FEMA thinks will be the flood. It is characterized by being fairly shallow water, with a good amount of debris, and is essentially the storage area for flood water. You can build residential uses in the floodplain as long as the lowest floor is above the floodplain level.
The floodway, on the other hand, is where water will actually flow during a flood, often with great speed. This is the most dangerous area of the flood, and consequently FEMA does not allow residential uses in the floodway, period. When I speak of not allowing construction, this is the area I mean.
Also, a ‘100-year-flood’ does *not* mean that a flood of this magnitude will happen every 100 years, but rather that it has a 1/100 chance of happening every year. It’s theoretically possible that we could have two 100-year floods back to back. Odds are slim yes, but it has been a while since we’ve had one. Kinda like really big earthquakes in California; just because they aren’t frequent, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build as safely as you can in preparation for the time it does happen.
Somewhere out there is a great photograph that illustrates just how bad flooding in the Allen Creek can be. It shows the railroad bridge over Huron, right near the Delonis center & Good night Gracie’s - and someone is in a canoeing under the bridge with barely enough clearance. That’s how much water there can be. It’s quite a bit more than a couple feet!
posted by KGS on May 4th, 2005 at 11:42 amAgain, my understanding of the conception of the greenway is that at least some of the advocates expect the railroad to go out of business and disappear. I’m not at all in favor of that, but I do know at least one greenway theoretician who told me he looks forward to the railway and its embankment going away.
That’s probably why there has been zero focus on the possible conflict between a park and an active railroad.
And in any case, some versions of the greenway (Peter Allen’s?) call for the removal of hundreds of homes and businesses. Why not the railroad too?
But those of us who prefer to keep both the railroad and the neighborhoods along it should also be advocating for the small physical changes needed (e.g., to install some culverts for floodway downstream) to avert the possibility of a really catastrophic flood.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 4th, 2005 at 11:44 amI like to see granola boy take a break from his joint to remove one million tons of crushed limestone.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 11:48 amLarry, it’s Joe O’Neal (of O’Neal Construction) who is proposing the very extensive greenway idea. It’s an amazing long-range perspective, which is a nice change to the stop-gap thinking most commonly found, but I’m not in favor of tearing down houses either.
posted by KGS on May 4th, 2005 at 11:48 amSee the link. It doesn’t look like the railroad is going anywhere anytime soon. It may be boosteristic, but it’s more information we can use to evaluate the greenway plan than even the greenway web site offers.
posted by Dale on May 4th, 2005 at 12:18 pmSayeth KGS: “It sounds to me like the greenway advocates are saying ‘leap first, then we’ll figure it out’, and I just can’t get behind setting aside so much city property when there isn’t a good plan for it.”
I agree. Greenway advocates are sounding very much like the greenbelt proposal. I had (and still have) similar reservations about that, as well.
I also think that this is opportunism, rather than a coherent plan. Since there are some “open” properties, the suggestion is made to turn them into parks. No consideration whether they would be well suited to be parks, or whether they would be well used as parks.
With the proposed location for the greenway, it seems to me that it would be an amenity for the Old West Side, rather than for downtown. How would this be an amenity for the downtown area? It seems to me it’s more like a barrier between downtown and the Old West Side.
The alternate greenway is called a PR smokescreen that provides no balance. But they also say “there will be massive redevelopment of hundreds of other sites.” Might not some of those other sites be better suited to be a public park, more accessible for more of the downtown population?
I guess my question is, “Why is the Greenway the only balanced option?”
posted by archipunk on May 4th, 2005 at 12:26 pmThe railroad isn’t going anywhere soon. On the other hand, there’s been a push to put a trail system along the CN railroad that parallels Woodward Avenue through SE Oakland County. But I’m sure that’s just another group of granola-eatin’ cranks.
http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/mp/wwgrnway.html
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 12:26 pm“just because they aren’t frequent, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build as safely as you can in preparation for the time it does happen.”
You are right, but I guess my complaint is directed at the floodplain, not the floodway.
Question, then, would the proposed parks and greenways along Allen Creek be in the floodWAY?
posted by todd on May 4th, 2005 at 12:34 pmHelp me out, “____.” I read the study and found these words significant — “Canadian National has rejected all attempts to work in collaboration with the six cities.”
“Perhaps the greatest impediment to an active rail-with-trail along the CN corridor is the landowner, Canadian National Railroad. All attempts to meet with the company and to work with their legal, design, and operations teams to develop an active rail-with-trail were dismissed. To date, the company has not met with any of the six cities to discuss future railway pans and has informed the Johnson Hill Land Ethics Studio that, while they might be willing to discuss selling the right-of-way in the even that they decide to abandon the corridor, their concern for the safety of trail users in close proximit to a high volume of rail traffic that can approach speeds of 40 mph precludes them from considering the rail-with-trail idea.”
Here is pretty clear evidence that a rail-with-trail greenway IS NOT FEASIBLE. As a result, the design group is recommending a bike path on Woodward.
I actually have to say “thanks” for aiding my argument.
posted by Dale on May 4th, 2005 at 12:53 pmI saw that comment about the CN rejecting trails along their railway. I also found the website of a nonprofit group that helps to convert railways to trails (www.railstrails.org). They mention in their literature that you have to *wait* for the railway to become *abandoned* before you can hope to convert it into a trail.
In addition, I went to the Ann Arbor Railroad website (www.annarbor-railroad.com), and found this quote in their “History” section:
“Under its new ownership and management, the Ann Arbor Railroad has created one of the lowest operating ratios in the United States. Ann Arbor Railroad is commonly referred to as the “Crown Jewel” of the Regionals.”
So I don’t think they’re thinking of abandoning their lines any time soon, especially considering their major customers include each of the Big Three.
posted by Peter on May 4th, 2005 at 1:16 pmTodd, yes, it sounds like the greenway would be entirely or mostly within the floodway. As good a use as I can imagine, really, as long as everyone understood that nothing in the floodway would be permanent; you’d never know when the next flood would wipe it all out. Structures like pavillions would have to be built to withstand a flood (or cheaply built so they could be demo’d and rebuilt easily).
posted by KGS on May 4th, 2005 at 1:29 pm“Here is pretty clear evidence that a rail-with-trail greenway IS NOT FEASIBLE. As a result, the design group is recommending a bike path on Woodward.”
Dale - thanks for ignoring the image that shows an active trail right next to an active railway. I personally don’t think it’s the best idea but it’s not impossible as some people have claimed here. It’s been done elsewhere.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 2:29 pmThat’s a two-track providing access to railroad personnel and utilities you nitwit.
posted by Dale on May 4th, 2005 at 2:53 pmCan I say once again that I think a greenway trail along the railway is a stupid idea? I mean, where I live - right around madison and main - there are 5 busy streets that cross the trail all within the span of a few blocks. Even if you wanted to run along that disgustingly ugly railway (wow! There’s a warehouse! And a lumber yard! And a Japanese Auto Repair store! Etc) it would be a miserable walk/run consisting of stops and starts waiting for hicks in their trucks and NIMBYs in their SUVs to pass. Who the hell wants that? I’ll tell you who: Idiots want that. Not that Ann Arbor isn’t infested with such morons - each person I meet of late has lowered my IQ substantially so that I can hardly think anymore - but I didn’t think people really were so dumb that they would want to run along the tracks. Why not do it now and risk getting hit by a train? It would be one less voice calling for yet another ridiculous idea.
Spend money on something else: Like developing a downtown worth visiting, or firebombing Palio, that disgusting and shitty Italian restaurant. In fact - turn Palio into a park - no one should miss it, unless you have zero taste in Italian food.
posted by DrMandrake on May 4th, 2005 at 4:05 pmMandrake, as always, shows us the middle path between all extremes . . .
posted by Nick on May 4th, 2005 at 4:28 pmYou can walk it now. The shit growing there is native. Think how much it will cost to maintain.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 4:33 pm“That’s a two-track providing access to railroad personnel and utilities you nitwit.”
Dale - You can post your apology after you view Figures 14 - 16 which are highlighted as “Rail-with-Trail Examples in Other Cities”
Thanks.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 4:54 pmFrom www.michganrailroads.com:
“Ann Arbor Railroad Operations:
The train from Toledo to Saline is called around 10:00 a.m. in Toledo. It builds its train and then proceeds north. It usually has work at the Dundee Cement Plant. At Milan, they drop off cars for the Norfolk Southern. If the train is scheduled to perform switching work at the Saline Visteon Plant (on the Saline Branch) around 2:00 pm to 3:00 p.m. They leave there train at Saline or Pittsfield Jct. (where the Saline Branch crosses) and deadhead back to Toledo. The night crew dead heads to Saline (or Pittsfield), switches the Saline Visteon Plant around midnight, then proceeds north to Osmer (about 5 miles north of downtown Ann Arbor) where they interchange cars with the Tuscola & Saginaw Bay (TSBY). They then head back to Toledo for the night.”
So, the AA railroad provides an essential link between Toledo and the TSBY tracks north of Ann Arbor. The trucking industry is reaching capacity (if you haven’t been on the interstate lately–check it out) and oil prices keep rising. Freight railroads are starting to make a big comeback (hot stock tip). It’s not going away, folks.
Besides, that gravel embankment is the perfect puking spot after being thrown out of the bars on First Street. Long live the Ann Arbor Pukeway!
posted by Delgado on May 4th, 2005 at 5:15 pmThe only “essential” stop there is the Saline facility. The rest of the interchanges could be handled by other railroads. The TSBY has an interchange with CSX east of Howell where cars are switched between the railroads. The A2 is the most direct route in that direction from Toledo but CSX has a mainline south from Plymouth to Toledo that could handle those shipments. I think there is some AG-based traffic from Osmer - I’ve seen cars along the siding in A2 Township.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 6:22 pmand now for something completely different… ah, the good news is that unlike most of the rest of you snivelling ann arbor residents, i have busted out. i am no longer in the vicinity. phew. good day to you. have fun at art fair.
posted by meg on May 4th, 2005 at 8:28 pmDid the door hit you on the way out?
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 8:55 pmWhat’s wrong with railroad tracks anyway? I like living “on the wrong side of the tracks” in the OWS. I think the “Greenway” is a massively stupid idea. Move 10 minutes out of town if you want to be surrounded by trees and squirrels and shit. This is a city, people. Cities have buildings. This is good, because buildings have stuff for sale and things to eat and drink in them and are warm in the winter.
posted by Dave on May 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pmDave you sound like either a member of the DDA board or someone with a financial stake in the DDA plan. Have you written a letter to the editor recently?
posted by Dale on May 4th, 2005 at 11:53 pmYes, I’m part of the Vast Development Conspiracy, and it’s my job to post on blogs in an effort to sway public opinion toward our nefarious plans to build things.
Actually, I just think the whole greenway thing is really dumb. It is possible to think that, you know.
posted by Dave on May 5th, 2005 at 8:25 amI think the AA Railroad should close down or change their route based on what people in this blog and granola hippies desire. After all AAIO has advance secret technology.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 8:44 amNot surprisingly, having talked to many of the residents along Spring St. and thereabouts whose properties would potentially be actually affected by the greenway (as it seems unlikely that Peter Allen and the owner, possibly Bill Martin, of the really expensive brand new building at 1st/kingsley would willingly cede), they are oddly, actually not particularly thrilled with the idea of potentially being ousted by some eminent domain type action. Particularly as many of them recently fought an extensive, very expensive legal battle with a crank claiming ownership along the RR right of way already.
posted by stella on May 5th, 2005 at 10:01 amAlso some of those houses are really very historic, where does that fit in with the ongoing agenda of various preservationists? Particulary as a F’rinstance the italianate at the intersection of Spring/Cherry which Im told was one the very early hospitals.
I also assume that since AARR has recently started dumping a substantial amount of money into bolstering its system here, in order to increase utilization of its rails here I doubt they will cede much either
Greenway- what a nice, groovy thought, and a logistic nightmare.
Just kidding, Dave. It was sarcasm.
posted by Dale on May 5th, 2005 at 10:30 am“Spend money on something else: Like developing a downtown worth visiting, or firebombing Palio, that disgusting and shitty Italian restaurant. In fact - turn Palio into a park - no one should miss it, unless you have zero taste in Italian food.”
I love it. I’m with Mandrake.
The greenway would cost a bazillion (actual figure)dollars and displace homeowners for a pathetic return. Aslo, the RR ain’t going anywhere anytime soon. And no one better fuck with Knight’s market.
posted by LF on May 5th, 2005 at 10:35 amOk I just, just, gotta ask: Are you my sister LF? Im digging your online personae-
posted by stella on May 5th, 2005 at 10:48 amHow about a subterranean park? 15 years ago, some buddies and I canoed into the Allen Creek tunnel at Argo dam. The water level was such that we were beached almost immediately. We walked in the tunnel for awhile and climbed out of a manhole near Leopold’s (the improved gin recipe is outstanding, IMHO) There is also an access point we used near the aforementioned building on W. Kingsley. I will not give specific locations for either manhole.
posted by LF on May 5th, 2005 at 11:01 amThe city could spend 20k for lighting hire people to dress in gnome and dwarf costumes. Perhaps a fantasy theme park of some kind. Visitors pushing their strollers through heavy metal contamination and airborne mycotoxins.
Knights could open a hot dog stand along the Spleenway. It could have a historical aspect as well. Complete with passed out bums and tripping hippies. I must admit in college after trying mushrooms, and after lying atop a stack of lumber at Fingerle half the night, staring at the sky. I walked the greenway to the Huron from fingerle. There was lots of cool stuff to stare at at Lanskys. But I climbed a ladder for a railroad signal and was terrified to come down for about an hour. But the greenway was not Green that day, maybe they should call it the Rainbowway.
posted by YD on May 5th, 2005 at 11:23 amPalio has been researching alternative fuel uses for their excess pizza grease for years. I think we should give them a break. Soon most of Ann Arbor residents will be able to power their hybred vehicles for a month just by ordering a large pepperoni.
posted by yd on May 5th, 2005 at 11:29 amGreat thought, YD - And perhaps they might come up with a use for all the vomit created by people getting sick because their food is so terrible. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying the food is unsafe - it just happens to be the absolute worst Italian I’ve ever wolfed down - and man, I’ve friggin eaten at Bucco de Bepoi in Birmingham (although my company that night - a bunch of assholes from Cranbrooke Art School - nearly made me toss my insides out. Artists blow.)
Rather than try to come up with vehicles that can run on pizza grease - try coming up with a pizza that’s actually edible.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 1:32 pmSorry, Dale. The batteries in my sarcasm detector ran out of juice this morning.
posted by Dave on May 5th, 2005 at 2:41 pmI mean geez we only have an entire line of parks running along the northern side of AA, plus the Arb. Geez talk about a lack of space! Does it just make too much sense to keep all the businesses in one place and the parks in the other?
posted by .CLR on May 13th, 2005 at 10:02 amHi Ann Arbourites. There’s a “greenway” in my neighborhood, too.
The “Canadian National Right-of Way option” of the Royal Oak study linked to above is along the route taken by commuter trains between Pontiac and the Ren Cen as recently as 1983. The south section of that line, aka the Dequindre Cut, runs from just south of Hamtramck past the Cultural Center and through the Eastern Market. It has been abandoned by the railroad company and is now owned by the City of Detroit.
The State of Michigan is giving grants to groups that intend to turn the below-grade rail bed into an “urban greenway” bicycle trail, despite attempts by other Citizens groups to preserve it for commuter rail.
posted by Hillary on May 13th, 2005 at 5:11 pm