ann arbor is overrated.

Easthope Endorsement

We usually slack off on the endorsement thing, but if you live in the 5th Ward, consider making it to the polls on August 8th and voting for incumbent council member Chris Easthope in the primary. Yes, you read that right — Chris “Greenway Resolution” Easthope, who, along with Leigh “Porch Couch Ban” Greden, has improbably become one of our favorites on the council.

Easthope is running against Sonia Schmerl, who has attempted to paint him as a tool of development interests, pointedly pledging that “she will not accept contributions, meals or gifts of any kind from contractors, developers or lobbyists that do business with the city.” She has not, however, promised to decline contributions from homeowners, neighborhood groups or landlords who may perceive new development as a threat to their own financial interests.

The very first plank of Schmerl’s platform provides a good idea of what she stands for: “Neighborhoods are the fundamental strength of our community. They shouldn’t be cut out of the action on decisions affecting our future.” In the past year or so, neighborhoods have displayed their fundamental strength by opposing public parks, sidewalks, apartment buildings, a high school and the redevelopment of a blighted strip mall. Schmerl is also a fan of “secret meeting” conspiracy theories to explain why the Calthorpe planning process came to conclusions that differ from those of the neighborhoods.

The strange thing is that, a few months ago, no one would have even thought to call Easthope pro-development in the slightest. He voted against the Downtown Development Authority three-site plan and sponsored the famous greenway resolution.

We like Easthope because we watch a lot of council meetings and he seems like a reasonable guy. When Joan Lowenstein argued that an outdoor NCAA celebration might attract underage drinkers, Easthope pointed out that the council had little grounds to disallow the event when it had approved the very similar Oktoberfest. He also supported the lease-postponement ordinance that gives renters more time to assess their options.

We have no idea how strong of a challenge Schmerl presents, but we see her “Real Greenway Now” signs all over our neighborhood. So if you’ve never voted in a local primary before, consider this your chance to unleash your inner political geek.

93 Responses to “Easthope Endorsement”

I’d be interested to here Schmerl’s position on the city’s recent efforts to wring more money out of the Easy Street neighborhood by forcing them to pay for sidewalks in the same way the rest of city residents do.

Numerous quotes in this article make it clear that this particular fundamental stength of our community has little interest in contributing to the community’s larger efforts.

But in the typical, callous government fashion, the demands of the neighborhood are being ignored for the benefit of the larger community.

http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-18/115402563446420.xml&coll=2

Would she salute these brave citizen’s resolute stand against government oppression and having to shoveling sidewalks?
posted by Scott TenBrink on July 28th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Although the election on August 8 is a primary, it will essentially determine who is elected in November because there are no Republican challengers for the open seats. So don’t wait til November - this primary is your real chance to vote for your preferred candidate!
posted by Laura F. on July 28th, 2006 at 7:25 am
I’d like to AAIO’s take on the mayoral primary too.

And yes, what is Schmerl’s stance on sidewalks and shoveling?
posted by AAMom on July 28th, 2006 at 10:13 am
I plan to vote for Mayor Hieftje, but Wendy Woods is a far better candidate than Sonia Schmerl, so I haven’t posted anything yet. I also don’t know much about either Ron Suarez or John Roberts in the First Ward.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on July 28th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Ron Suarez wins the Cool Signs Award. Have you noticed they’re all unique?
posted by Michael McC. on July 28th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Suarez is an east coast carpetbagger.
posted by Robert Moses on July 28th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I’m waiting for the ultra-mega democrat to announce their candidacy. “Progressive” democrat doesn’t do much for me.
posted by James on July 28th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Does anyone know if its possible to vote absentee in a primary? I have to go out of town and won’t be back until late on the 8th. I also live in the 5th ward and want to vote for Easthope.
posted by CMS on July 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Carpetbagger??
posted by todd on July 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
East Coast carpetbagger?! Heh - I didn’t think a city council election was worth even that minor amount of mudslinging.

Yes, Ron was born in Spanish Harlem and did his bachelors at NYU. But he’s lived in Ann Arbor for more than 30 years, got his PhD here, raised two kids here, has done tons of pro-bono DJ work for local groups and has been active in progressive politics his whole life.

Check his website ronsuarez.com if you want to know what’s important to him. Or drop him a line - he’s happy to talk about his positions.

And I’m glad you like the signs, Michael McC - I’m Ron’s campaign manager and I’ve done the bulk of them myself, with some help from some other local artists like Julie Tate.
posted by Laura F. on July 28th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
CMS asked: “… possible to vote absentee in a primary?”

Yes, and
here’s how.
posted by Anonymous on July 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I’m glad I don’t live in the First Ward anymore. Suarez’s apparent alliance with CARD is disconcerting, but I have no idea what the heck Roberts has done/stands for, either.

An Easthope sign recently materialized in front of my house, and our once-affable matured-bohemian neighbor now has confronted me about Easthope being anti-Environment and pro-developer. When I argued that we need more development in urban areas rather than outside of them, she countered that we don’t need it anywhere. I had to go catch the bus.
posted by Brandon on July 28th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
HEY ROBERT MOSES - who’s the carpetbagger?

Google search results:
“ron suarez” “ann arbor” - 1,070
“ron suarez” “new york” - 309
“robert moses” “ann arbor” - 708
“robert moses” “new york” - 356,000

;-)
posted by Ron Suarez on July 28th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
“Yes, Ron was born in Spanish Harlem and did his bachelors at NYU. But he’s lived in Ann Arbor for more than 30 years, got his PhD here, raised two kids here, has done tons of pro-bono DJ work for local groups and has been active in progressive politics his whole life.”

Um yeah, we know. This is pretty much how Ron starts every conversation. Unfortunately, it is never followed up by much explanation of what he might do if actually elected to Ann Arbor’s City Council. Here is a tip Ron: I don’t care if you grew up in Spanish Harlem or your in-depth thoughts on global issues or how many web sites you have or how old your friends are, I want to know what you propose to do on City Council that is so different from the other candidate.

I haven’t seen any of the signs, but the t-shirts are very cool.
posted by Juliew on July 28th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Brandon - as far as CARD goes, I do think citizens have a right to question a $40 million subsidy to a developer. I am not anti-development, but I do not think we have to bend over for the developers and that we as citizens have a right to choose the future we want.

How many opportunities will we have to subsidize something to the tune of $40 million ($80 million including interest) over the next 30 years? They claim we’d make it back in real estate taxes over 30 years. Serious business people do not want to look much beyond 5 years for a return.

I looked at this statistically and it seems to be an anomaly for both the developer’s experience and the practices of the City of Ann Arbor. There is no precedent on either side for this large a subsidy. The developer couldn’t name a single project he had ever done with this large a percentage getting subsidized. And, the City has never done anything on quite this scale as far as I know.

I’d like to see more density downtown, but I think we have much better choices for how to do this. Companies like Google are looking at Ann Arbor and I think we can negotiate much better on behalf of the Ann Arbor taxpayer, than what has been proposed for Lowertown.

A little business advice: “be prepared to sometimes pass up a deal in order to have more negotiating power and better overall results in the bulk of your dealings.” I certainly could be wrong about Lowertown - but it really smells bad to me.
posted by Ron Suarez on July 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Juliew -
1) Include the costs of maintenance and support for software in the budget when the city does balance sheets (they either don’t know what software really costs or have been hiding it)
2) Have an open bid list for city contracts, which has not existed at least for software contracts (I tried for many years to find such a list).
3) When coming up with new technology ideas like wireless water meter readers, do some testing, so you don’t discover after the fact that a large number of homeowners have to replace their plumbing for it to work.

I’ve got more to say, but I am off to New Media Friday at Palio’s and then door to door.
posted by Ron Suarez on July 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Moreover, I would like to ask Ron what HE wants to see happen at Broadway Village. I cannot forsee how this site will be developed in any useful way without Tax-Increment Financing, and I cannot believe Council will approve the bond without being very confident in the numbers. We need dense, mixed-use development like this in this city, and it seems those vocally opposed are really using this ballot initiative as a way to block a mid-rise building a few blocks from their houses. We need progressive urbanism in this city, and state, desperately.

What’s the alternative vision for this blighted site?
posted by Brandon on July 28th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Okay, Ron, your initial response snuck-in there. Thanks.

Please define how this is a “subsidy.” This money will come from the increased tax revenues that result from a developed site. That is, it does not exist unless the project is built. Nobody is forking-over $40 million out of the general fund to the developer.

Yes, most real-estate developers do expect a very fast return on their investments– that is why, for many desirable urban infill projects public-private partnerships are important, as governments are invested in their communities for the long-term. If I recall correctly, at a party some time ago you responded to me that maybe “nothing” should be built there if it won’t be built based on market forces.

Currently, there is no “free market” in which development operates. This nation has historically and continues to publicly-subsidize sprawl at the expense of cities via highway, fuel, and mortgage policies. Additionally, for other political reasons (NIMBYism, more stringent regulations in cities), social reasons (racism), and economic reasons (land prices), the market dictates that new development should happen at the exurban fringe on farmland.

The state’s brownfield program is just one small way that government is attempting to channel some development, against most odds, back into existing cities on blighted/contaminated sites. Places with existing infrastructure, transit, walkability, and diversity. It seems like a true “Progressive Democrat” would understand the need for such a program.
posted by Brandon on July 28th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
“Serious business people do not want to look much beyond 5 years for a return.”

FYI, the city of Ann Arbor is not a business, it is a CITY. The fact that some of the citizens want to plan in 5 year increments (depending, of course, on the proximity of a project to one’s home) is why we are in the mess we are in in the first place.
posted by todd on July 28th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
I’m trying to follow the logic — a candidate campaigning that they should not represent citizens on an important issue, rather that citizens should bypass the elected candidate and vote on the important issues themselves?

If I were Easthope, I would be regretting positioning myself near the NIMBYs over the last year in trying to head off a Greenway challenge. Despite his slow-it-down votes, it’s the urbanists who are supporting him while the single-issue crew jumped ship a long time ago.
posted by Dale on July 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Now that aaio has endorsed him, he won’t have to put up those “Chris Easthope: Sounds Like ‘Clint Eastwood’” posters after all. (…..)

P.S. aaio, you lose 5 points for a literalist clunker title like “Easthope Endorsement”. I think “The East Is Green” would’ve been the obvious choice, cf. Mao’s favorite anthem/musical (!) “The East Is Red”…
posted by David Boyle on July 28th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Ron –

I think I’m with you on your technology ideas; how are good government issues “progressive”?
posted by Dale on July 28th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Historically, hasn’t progressivism often been about good government issues? e.g. women’s suffrage, direct election of senators, and journalistic watchdogging of government? It’s only a recent affectation (since 2000, afaict) to use “progressive” to say “I’m a liberal democrat, but even more liberal and more of a democrat than those other so-called liberal democrats.” In the original sense, which I personally think is a positive sense, I think Ron fits the progressive label very well. I’m less convinced about the modern usage, as of yet.

And, Ron, I too would like to express skepticism of your claim that a city should look at investments as though the city was a business. But I’m curious to know what you’d estimate the depreciation rate of a city at? (Can we each, as citizens, claim a chunk of municipal depreciation as a business expense on our taxes?)

Actually, I think that the idea that government should be run as if it were a business is responsible for a decent share of our current social dilemmas - run government leaner and more efficiently? Hmmm. How can we do that? I know! Let’s cut out the services that serve the most needy, as those tend to have the lowest tax revenue return on the budget expenditure investment! Yes, I’d say “run government like a business” is more in keeping with modern Republican views than modern “progressive” views. (See also one of Jane Jacobs’ more obscure books, “Systems of Survival”, which argues that government and business should be divided by bright lines, to avoid monstrous hybrids like Stalinism or the Mafia…)
posted by Murph on July 28th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
(P.S. I kinda like Ron, but that doesn’t mean I can’t give him a hard time. If I knew anything about Roberts, I’d cut him in on a share of the love.)
posted by Murph on July 28th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
P.S. aaio, you lose 5 points for a literalist clunker title like “Easthope Endorsement”.

That was the placeholder when I started writing this post a couple days ago, and I forgot to change it! I admit lameness.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on July 28th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Ah, but “good government” without moral goals including equality and social justice are not progressive. Many Progressive Era government initiatives like the advent of recalls and referenda were attempts to thwart entrenched power and corruption — moral motivations — rather than attempts to streamline because technology and voting reform are cool.

All of which is a pedantic way of saying “testing new technology to make life easy on homeowners” doesn’t strike me as being a morally-based issue worthy of the progressive name. It was moral progress they were after, not just technocratic progress.
posted by Dale on July 28th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Maybe you should spend some time asking Suarez about affordable housing and indie business / arts?

Granted, I know those are only passingly mentioned on his website, but they’re things he’s talked to me about being interested in aiding a few times.
posted by Murph on July 29th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
AAIO — thanks for your endorsement of Easthope. I live in the First Ward, so I can’t vote against Schmerl myself, but I sincerely hope others do.

Ron — I would very much like to hear what you propose for Broadway Village. And where do you stand on the Greenway? As a resident of the First Ward, I chose to live downtown because I enjoy being surrounded by other people and living in walking distance of the businesses I frequent. We have plenty of parks here already!
posted by Emily on July 29th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
You know what appeals to me about Sonia Schmerl? I appreciate that she’s concerned about what constituents want and has committed to setting up regular outreach meetings with folks in the 5th ward. Chris Easthope, while being an okay councilman, hasn’t done that. And I think that’s where frustration starts creeping in for some residents. Is it too much to ask for councilmembers to actually reach out on a regular basis to constituents?

Brandon: I agree. We do need development in the city centers rather than out in the townships. But that doesn’t mean councilmembers need to have private meetings with developers and then not be upfront about those alliances. Being pro-developer isn’t necessarily being pro-smart-development. Likewise, being anti-developer (or whatever) isn’t necessarily being anti-development.
posted by Young OWSider on July 29th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Except those meetings Easthope had with developers were used to figure out semi-plausible (at best) excuses not to build the parking garage on First and William. He was responding TOO DIRECTLY to a HANDFUL of his constituents in order to try to head off a Greenway challenge and it didn’t work.
posted by Dale on July 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
So those are the ONLY meetings he’s had with developers behind closed doors? Really? And do the reasons honestly matter?
posted by Young OWSider on July 29th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
“Behind closed doors”?

This is a nonsensical, even Cahillian, phrase. If you want to accuse him of something, do it.
posted by Dale on July 29th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I’m just saying that it appears to be standard practice among many on city council to meet with developers and then not disclose those meetings. In fact, many developers say “Oh, I’ve spoken to city councilmembers about this privately”, etc.

You brought up that he’s met with developers privately, so you must know something. I, myself, do not know anything specific–just heard rumblings from planning commissioners and the like.

Do you think Easthope has done enough to reach out to constituents to see how they feel about issues or his job on council? He’s never knocked on my door or sent me a newsletter on what he’s doing or asked for my feedback. People (voters and officeholders) get lazy in one party towns. It’s good to shake things up when folks forget they’re accountable to actual voters.
posted by Young OWSider on July 29th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Is meeting with developers, citizens, or anyone else informally wrong? It’s a small town. As long as there’s no bizarre bribery, conflicts of interest, or other issues involved, it seems totally normal that political leaders would have lunch or a drink with [citizens/activists/businesspeople/developers/students/anyone]. The Mayor can talk to readers of this site at Leopold Bros., Councilmembers can have lunch with developers, and Suarez can party on Depot Street with his peeps. Does one really expect that all communication with concerned parties should happen at the formal public meetings? As long as everything is on the up, it seems like a natural education/communication process for politicians.
posted by Brandon on July 29th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Brandon: I totally agree.
posted by Young OWSider on July 29th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
[Note: started before Brandon’s comment but finished after.]

The caucuses on the Three Site Plan are specifically what I was thinking of. Developers were there with all (Dem) council members talking about what parking would cost to reallocate to other lots (saving First and William for … something) — this came out in discussion at the council meeting the following night.

It is totally appropriate for council members to meet with all types of business and civic interests on issues facing the city — developers, religious leaders, university administrators, etc. That these are not known by the public speaks more to the crappiness of our local media than secrecy on the part of Council. I think the News or other news outlets should inquire about, FOIA Councilmembers’ schedules on city business or otherwise figure out what they’re working on and present it to the public (hey Tom Gantert — want to write a good story on local politics? How about doing more than sitting in a diner with 3 former planning commissioners and printing gossip?).

Easthope has never knocked on my door, but he has responded to every email I have sent and I have talked to him in a couple of public venues (he came to Mayor’s night at Leopold Bros. night which was a smart PR move, in my mind. It’s lamentable that the only group that has built up a sustained engagement with council have been working for change in the form of a Greenway fantasy. If some group or candidates were pushing an anti-establishment vision for the city (or 5th Ward) that promoted equity or something more than property values, I would seriously consider supporting them. Easthope understands that the interest groups go a long way in getting votes, rather than being “accountable to actual voters,” (which I’m with you in hoping there will be some more of in the future) which is why I think he went all Greenway on us a year ago.

I think we agree for the most part, YOWS; for me, though, the alternative to voting out the establishment candidate will be MUCH worse for any vision of Ann Arbor I want to consider.
posted by Dale on July 29th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Just to give another example for you Young OWS:

When it came time to apply for our distilling license, the first thing that we did was place a phone call to our Councilperson. Scott talked to him for about 15 minutes, explaining what the heck a distillers license was, and discussed how much a distillers license should cost (he decided it was fair and easy just to make it the same price that the State Distillers License is) since the City had never issued one before. The Councilperson then put the license approval hearing on the agenda.

None of this is on the record. None of this happened in public. None of this was sneaky or weird.

The public hearing and input process was still intact, as citizens were notified that we were applying for the license in advance, and time was set aside at the council meeting for public commentary. None was given.

Our Council Person, who had been briefed by my brother, led the discussion of what a distillers license was to Council during the meeting. None of the Council persons had questions, other than to wish us luck in our new venture.

Now if you repeat this process with various citizens, groups like the Friends of the Greenway, business persons, and yes, those evil developers, this is pretty much a typical week for a Councilperson.
posted by todd on July 29th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
I agree largely with you, Dale and Todd and Brandon on the meeting issue. And I’m not a “Greenway or the Highway” type of person and am saddened that the debate turned so divisive so quickly. I also don’t think developers are evil, and I don’t have a problem with 15 story buildings downtown if they’re designed well. I guess one of my main concerns is that there are plenty of opportunities for councilmembers to speak to developers, business persons, etc. But many council members don’t attempt to reach out to the people who actually vote for them. Yes, we can contact them. But that’s just not the same.

And I think, Dale, that we probably do agree on most everything. I still go back and forth on the 5th Ward city council race b/c there are good and bad to each candidate, as is typical. I’m hoping that citizens here in Ann Arbor can help create venues for current elected officials to come speak to neighborhood/precinct groups. I know there’s been quite a bit of work in some 5th Ward precincts to help make this happen.

Cheers.
posted by Young OWSider on July 29th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
I find it a bit unrealistic to ask that the city council members contact the people that vote for them. None of them have ever contacted me and i don’t feel in the least way slighted by that. Rather, I think it’s the responsibility of the citizens to bring their concerns to their elected officials. there are alot of us and very few of them and it is much more feasible for the information food chain to go up, rather than down. And your precinct-hall style meetings are an excellent suggestion, but i would guess we’d probably have to let them know when they are. an active and involved voting population is the bedrock of democracy and to ask our reps to drag us out of our lazy funk is not their job.
posted by tim on July 29th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Neighborhood groups who want to be heard are doing a great job of getting things postponed whenever they want. I don’t think there’s any need to reach out to them more. And with the couch ban failing and the lease ordinance passing, I think the council has even been quite responsive to students and renters in the last few years. I don’t understand this idea that the council doesn’t listen to constituents.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on July 29th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
“But many council members don’t attempt to reach out to the people who actually vote for them. Yes, we can contact them. But that’s just not the same.”

Well, I’m hoping that you consider us businesspeople voters too. We get one vote just like you do…..and they didn’t reach out to us….we reached out to them. I’d have to check with my brother, but I can’t recall any local politician EVER giving us a call for any reason.

And for the record, each and every Councilperson, as well as the Mayor, has standing “office hours”. It’s called the Public Commentary period of the City Council meeting. If you are honestly concerned about being heard, then get yourself to City Hall and sign up for a time slot. The forum that you are asking for already exists. You just need to show up.

Or if you need more time to share your views, shoot your Councilperson an email. I’d be 100% shocked if you didn’t get a response within a reasonable amount of time. In fact, be a good citizen and invite your Councilperson out for a cup of coffee. They could probably use a nice break…..
posted by todd on July 29th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
I’ve met my councilpersons. They complain about being busy, but they have shown up to meetings of constituents, and that’s great. And I’ve spoken at city council meetings. And I watch meetings on TV. And I email my council people and (sometimes) hear back from them. Trust me when I say I don’t sit at my home and complain and wish my elected officials would come to me.

Tim–I agree that it’s the responsibility of citizens to contact elected officials when they have issues. I’ve done that in the past many times. A neighbor of mine had great success getting better markings for a pedestrian crossing on Liberty, and Chris Easthope helped make that happen. It’s great for the kids, it helps remind drivers on Liberty that people actually cross the street, and it’s a plus for the precinct. Yay for that.

And I know it’s not their job to drag lazy Ann Arbor voters out of their funk. That’s why there are people trying to do that in some of the precincts. I’d love to have my councilmembers show up to a meeting with 100 or more precinct residents at a local school. And I’m working with others to help make that happen. Here’s hoping! It would be swell to have once-monthly meetings and invite our elected officials to attend and actually have them attend rather than say they’re too busy–and that’s happened, too. But it takes a while, and the local political machine, if you will, has fallen apart. The only thing that connects a lot of people is their hatred for Bush and discussions about their kids. Getting people interested in local issues is difficult business, but I’m committed to getting people to care.

Todd–of course business people need to be heard. I’m not anti-business. I want to have a vibrant downtown, but I realize I have no experience and no expertise on the matter of creating that vibrancy. But I know I’d like some green space downtown, but I’d also like train stations/commuter rail and wouldn’t necessarily want the city to pay oodles of cash to clean up an old industrial site to make it suitable for a park. And I’ve had councilmembers to my home before, and they’re nice people. Sure I question some of their tactics, but none of them are evil incarnate.

aaio–I think the sense for some voters is that things just materialize and are foisted upon them. Is this really what happens, or is it that people just aren’t paying attention until it’s too late? I think it’s a bit of both. The system has broken down. Voters are lazy, and to some extent so are the elected officials. I don’t, however, think that when Sonia Schmerl says that neighborhoods need to be listened to that she’s saying that they need to trump common sense. Maybe she is. But I see it more as a way of saying it’s important to talk to constituents and not forget that we need to engage people at all levels. Right now you have an odd relationship where people feel that they have to react to things that appear out of nowhere–like a 3 site plan or a big ugly building (I’m not against big buildings). There’s something that’s not working, and I hope that it can change.

Here’s the deal: I don’t want to be a part of an obstructionist neighborhood/precinct group. I want to be a part of a group that provides the opportunity for councilmembers/state rep/US rep/etc and residents to come together. I want to be a part of a group that educates itself and others on local issues and works to create well-informed citizens. And I’m working to help create that. I hope others will, too.
posted by Young OWSider on July 29th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
I don’t recall anything ever getting “foisted” on me. I read the _Ann Arbor News_ everyday and the _Observer_ once a month and I pretty much know what’s coming. In fact, given the Job like patience of Ann Arbor in seeing anything through to completion, I sometimes learn about something, have time to forget about it, learn about it again, and then forget everything again–only to be reminded that, “Oh, yeah, that mother fucker isn’t dead yet!” For example, anyone know where we stand on the farmers’ market expansion? We only agreed to buy that old house like, what, twenty years ago? And there’s still no plan on what to do with the extra sixteenth of an acre? Yeah, okay, let’s table that again until we’ve talked to the leather artisans, and the Community High kids, and the homeless, and the neighborhood residents, and the historical preservationists, and the kohlrabi growers union. Could we have talked to them earlier? Sometime in the DECADES in which we knew this shit was coming down? What the fuck were we doing then? Maybe stalling because we couldn’t stand the thought of one single additional public commentary session convened within the city of Ann Arbor?

Sorry, just an especially egregious example, and a personal pet peeve. There should have been a solid plan and a bulldozer parked at the curb waiting for the ambulance to leave.

Back to the subject at hand, various iterations of the three site plan have been kicking around for at least ten years–since we’ve known that parking structure was on the verge of being condemned. If you missed the news, maybe you didn’t live here then.

And anyway, totally off topic, but a festering irritation nonetheless, can we establish a standard regarding the definition of the word “young”? I labored under the misapprehension that the “Young” Old West Sider and the “Young” Urban Amateur were actually “young”. I cut them some slack for months, thinking they were, like, fucking kids–maybe seventeen, maybe less. But over time, I gather that they own homes, maybe have their own kids, probably aren’t any younger than thirty-five. In Ann Arbor that’s OLD. Really fucking old. Young in Palm Beach maybe, but in Ann Arbor, OLD.

You want to call yourself “young”, be twenty-three or younger. Younger than the oldest undergraduate. Otherwise, take it up with your shrink, geezer.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on July 30th, 2006 at 12:26 am
What do the Council candidates say about divestment from Israel, as crushes the whole infrastructure of Lebanon & Palestine?

How can you run when you know?
posted by Divest from Apartheid Israel on July 30th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Israel crushes Lebanon & Gaza,
and City Council crushes all debate on divestment from Israel.

Why?

Are you cool with that?
posted by Israel crushes Lebanon & Gaza on July 30th, 2006 at 12:41 am
You’re as young as you feel.
posted by David Bpyle on July 30th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Boyle, not Bpyle. Sorry bout that. …”Bpyle” looks like Cyrillic (Russian) or something.
posted by David Boyle on July 30th, 2006 at 12:45 am
200 people just marched, again, to save Palestine & Lebanon from the Israeli military, which is getting to be indistinguishable from the Ann Arbor City Council.

Yes, 200 marched to the Ann Arbor City Hall itself, July 29, 2006.

Who will ask the Council to deal with the divestment-from-Israel issue, after all these years of smothering the whole idea?
posted by 200 march to save Palestine & Lebanon, again on July 30th, 2006 at 12:46 am
YoungOWSider, Developers go to the informal caucus meetings on the sunday nights before the meetings. They probably also call up council members, just as you could and try to give them a better understanding of the proposal. The Mayor has open office hours every week and developers probably take advantage of it just as you could.
posted by Dustin on July 30th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
…but what about the beach erosion in Micronesia? First things first dude.
posted by OFWinsurgent on July 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
(sorry, that was for the earlier comments)
posted by OFWinsurgent on July 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
PSD–take it easy, man! I guess I thought it seemed obvious that my stupid little moniker was a play on words–instead of calling myself a Young Urban Professional (in other words, a yuppie) I’d call myself a Young Urban Amateur. Yuppies, generally speaking, tend to be significantly older than seventeen…and so, by extension, young urban amateurs are, too. This seems obvious to me, but I guess the joke was lost somewhere…

Besides that, your other comments are inaccurate, but never mind, it’s not important.

While I’m at it, there is something relevant to the topic that I’d like to get off my chest. I like the idea of a greenway, but I just can’t make it a single issue (no matter how hard I try!) Having said that, it seems to me that many greenway proponents are also on the side of “Preserve Our Town the Way It Used to Be”. Which is fine–it’s another position I tend to support (but again, just can’t make it a single-issue, which is why I’m also moderately pro-growth) Except…the greenway would *not* preserve anything! The intitial greenway sites are currently parking lots. They have been for years. The greenway is as much a vision for the future of Ann Arbor as the most radical Calthorpe pro-growth plan out there. It is a deliberate change to the status quo. Maybe it would be the best change, who knows–but we shouldn’t pretend that it has much to do with The Way Things Used to Be Around Here.

Ok, I’m done now.
posted by Young Urban Amateur on July 30th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Which is why the economic interest interpretation is so much stronger.
posted by Dale on July 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
YUA, yeah, I confess, the gag totally went over my head. Possibly due to my having been conditioned not to use the term “yuppie” to describe locals by Mrs. Structure Dude!, a Big City native, who argues trenchantly that you can’t have yuppies without actual urban-ness.

Hence, I had been thinking along the lines of “amateur urbanist.”

And I do get the joke regarding Young Old West Sider. It’s all about, like, the juxtaposition of old and young, right?

But anyway, I was just goofing around, as I hoped my over-the-top tone would suggest. Who am I to make rules about other people’s noms de plume? I live under a fucking parking structure.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on July 30th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Can you vote in the democratic primary if you are registered independent?
posted by Joe on July 30th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
My wife and I are 5th warders who have been fortunate enough to have been visited by Mr. Easthope. Maybe we just get home from work earlier than all of our neighbors who have missed his visits.

I agree with AAIO that Easthope seems like a reasonable guy. He’s also a likeable guy, and anyone who thinks that shouldn’t mean much isn’t acknowledging how diplomatic a councilperson needs to be to serve effectively in a town like ours.

Ms. Schmerl certainly strikes me as dedicated, informed, and driven. Because I disagree with her, it’s easy for me to vote for Easthope, but even if I did share her suspicion regarding the lowertown project and other development issues facing the council, I wouldn’t vote for her. Her approach seems far too dramatic and divisive to lead council in any reasonable, measured course of action that balances neighborhood concerns with the good of the community.
posted by mr.e on July 30th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
In Michigan you cannot register in a party. You are a voter. PEriod. You walk into the polling place and request a ballot for whatever party you want to vote in.

How do you think John McCain won the GOP primary in 2000?
posted by AAMom on July 30th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Actually, you do not request a ballot for a particular party. There is only one ballot. In the privacy of the voting booth, you decide whether to vote in the Republican OR the Democratic Primary. If you vote in both, the machine will reject your ballot and you will be given a new one with instructions. Simple, eh? No one knows which primary you voted in. You just can’t vote in both.
posted by realDemocrat on July 31st, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I am wondering why so many of the candidates in this City election have not used Union printers for their campaign literature? I really like Ron Suarez, even though I don’t live in his Ward, but I have to wonder why someone tells the story of his grandfather Organizing cigar workers and then doesn’t support Union printers! In his defense, he is not the only candidate who neglected to use the Union ‘bug’.
posted by UnionSupporter on August 1st, 2006 at 9:48 am
I can’t speak for the other candidates but on my part it was plain ‘ol oversight. In the rush to get things ready for the campaign I just didn’t think to check whether the printer was a union shop. Should I win the primary I’ll be sure not to repeat the mistake.
posted by Jeff Meyers on August 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Are there any other car-free Ann Arborites feeling harassed by the city and its assumption that we are all car-owners? Most recently, it is the residential parking program that’s getting me. We are not eligible for a permit because we own no vehicle to which it can be attached. This means we are also not eligible for the “hang-tag” to give to our guests, babysitters and servicemen, or indeed for the rental cars we have on a regular basis when we need to get out of town, shop for large items, etc. We are of course willing to pay for the permit, but can not even apply without a registered vehicle. After jumping through enough hoops and hassles, the city finally agreed to a “temporary waiver only” because we are doing construction on our house.

We’ve had 3 parking tickets since the RPP went into effect this winter, and suffered many other inconveniences big and small. I feel we should have the same rights as our car-owning neighbors: to pay for a parking permit to use for our rental cars (which we have perhaps 3 of out every 30 days on average), a right for a permit to give to our guests, babsysitters, etc, and a right to
ask for waivers for our servicemen.
posted by Karen Smith on August 1st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Karen - you have a point. Why not take it up with Council members and ask them to change the ordinance? It sounds to me like a loophole.
posted by realDemocrat on August 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Put out some way to contact you in a comment, too, as I am sure you can find a few people here who would help give council a working over with you.
posted by Dale on August 1st, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Karen,
I’d encourage you to contact the getDowntown program and the Washtenaw biking and Walking Coalition as well. They would both likely support your issue and might have some good resources and ideas for you.

I think this is a great issue to bring up to council and am surprised that it hasn’t come up already. Were I in Ann Arbor right now, I’d definitely pitch in on this. Keep us posted if you decide to take the next step on this.

Also, I’m curious as to whether you have a driveway, and if so, how you use it if you don’t have a car.
posted by Scott TenBrink on August 1st, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Thanks for the tips, all. I already wrote to my city council reps and sure hope they’ll fix this problem, and especially that they’ll get the idea that there are responsible, tax-paying, home-owning, voting citizens of this city who choose to be car-free. The city shouldn’t be discriminating against the car-free in our ordinances. I hadn’t thought of getDowntown, and WBWC, but will check them out.

Yes, Scott, we have a shared driveway with our neighbor, and even a tiny garage, that is filled with bikes, strollers, wagons, carts, etc. Mostly, we use our driveway as a place for kids to ride tricycles, but our neighbor does use it to get to her garage.

Anyone can contact me at kesmith@umich.edu.
posted by Karen Smith on August 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 am
Excellent points, Karen, and this is coming from another car-free person (who doesn’t even rent a car). The only time I really felt discriminated against, though, is when the pro-greenway rhetoric focused on downtown’s “walkability.” I haven’t driven in over five years and I’ve never had any problem walking downtown. Did the pro-greenway people simply forget, I wonder?
posted by Lazaro on August 2nd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Schmerl has a page linked to her website entitled Cats for Sonia. This should be enough to get every 5th Ward resident to the polls to ensure that this woman never holds a public office.
posted by Patrick on August 2nd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
I thought the “Cats for Sonia” page was sort of cute, though I would have preferred “Dogs for Sonia” since I’m a dog person myself. . .
posted by Young OWSider on August 2nd, 2006 at 9:34 pm
i completely agree with lazaro. i sold my car a year ago and i can’t say that i’ve found any problems with walkability in ann arbor. i also don’t know what the knock is on the aata. yeah, so i have to think ahead before i go to the store, big deal. i’m a lot less stressed without the ol’ road rage, i laugh at the idiots driving by me, and i’m never late anymore.
posted by tim on August 2nd, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I agree with Tim—the car-free lifestyle is a lot more relaxed in many ways. I started it in 1988 for environmental/financial reasons, but continued later (after adding a full-time professional job and then 3 kids to my life) for lifestyle reasons. People don’t get it that it’s a better life.

Any idea how many car-free Ann Arborites are out there? Especially those with kids? Tell me your stories! Maybe we should form some kind of union, just to have our numbers known to city hall. Maybe it’ll help them consider stopping putting so much of our money into parking garages and focus on better public transit? Maybe it will help them remember us when they write ordinances? How about better bike lanes (talk about being overrated! don’t you just love when they suddenly end as a semi flies by?) Maybe I’m dreaming…..Maybe it’ll inspire someone else to choose car-free?
posted by Karen Smith on August 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 am
I never owned a car until I came here. Shit, I never had a license until I came here. I’ve always been used to planning around public transport.

My only gripe with aata is that it stops running at 10 pm on the weekdays and 5 or 6 on the weekends. (in other words, if you drink too much, you can either take a cab or drive drunk.)

If you don’t live downtown, it can be problematic. I live about a half hour walk from town. Half an hour in summer is no big deal, and I usually walk to town and back for work. Half an hour in snow, ice, and sub-freezing temps is quite a big deal. I had a late class last fall and I remember sprinting over ice and snow to get to the last bus. Sometimes I made it, sometimes I didn’t.

I should say that I’ve always lived in a city (Pittsburgh) before I moved here. Public transportation in the suburb where I grew up was bad, but still not this bad. (We had buses until 11 pm.) Public transportation in the city neighborhood where I lived as an adult was excellent, and ran until 1 or 2 am. It also didn’t seem to carry a social stigma like it does here.
posted by Pants Rule on August 3rd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Another carless person here, and one who generally and genuinely appreciates (and proselytizes for ) the fact that A2 really is a place in which carless or very limited car-use living is possible. It’s even true that one can live well out of the central area and still be just fine, as a lot of neighborhoods really aren’t but a mile or two out of the center (I used to live about 2 miles from work and it was totally doable). Very limited, non-owning car use isn’t that hard, e.g the occasional rentals like Karen does or taking the bus one way and taking a cab home with groceries, for instance. MOSTLY therefore I don’t complain, but I do think there are glitches. Karen’s nailed one of them, in areas with RPPs, and I suspect we all have our little lists–limited bus hours, some truly dreadful crossings (the insanely short signals for peds on State at Lib. and at William, or Huron west of downtown for blocks on end), neighborhoods which were allowed to be built–and I’m not talking rural areas here–with no sidewalks, crap lighting, and bad signage, or places where drivers are very unwilling to respect signals. There are also issues that may arise with new buildings, e.g. narrow setbacks in situations where water spews upward from car traffic in rain. So without being a crank and claiming it sucks now, I think it’s useful for us to variously identify the problem areas so that they might get fixed.
posted by Aki on August 3rd, 2006 at 3:26 pm
The AATA’s pretty good; the stop nearest my house could use a little more attention (in summer, the sign is hidden behind a huge tree bough) but I’ve never really had any other problems than that. I used to live in Akron before I came here and the bus ran until midnight (with “zone service” at 12:30 and 1), but I think it was also a bigger city.

I haven’t really faced any major problems with cars as a pedestrian, but agree that a lot of those crossing lights are bizarre. Despite my fallen arches, I may be more fleet-footed than most, but even I need more than a millisecond to cross the damn street. Then I remember that I don’t have to pay for car insurance, gas, or the astronomical rates I hear people have to pay for parking. Of course, I worry sometimes; some motorists I’ve ridden with since I stopped driving have been borderline sociopathic when it comes to other people’s driving infractions, and I grow leery of their tempers as the price of gas continues to rise… only one (admittedly paranoid) reason public transit is of such vital importance.
posted by Lazaro on August 3rd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
What I find really bizarre is the pedestrian crossing signs at Jackson and Maple. For some reason, they beep. Loudly. I can hear it half a mile away. It’s not a major pedestrial crossing, at least compared to State and Liberty, and I know of no other intersection in town that’s nearly as fucking loud.
posted by Pants Rule on August 3rd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
The link was great when they first brought it in and it ran every 8 minutes. Gave me real hope that maybe AA was going to get serious about public transportation. Aah well. Still, having it only every 15 and taking some long useless (to me) routes for students is better than nothing, but I use it less now that it’s no longer a quick way to get downtown. Lazaro, I’m glad you’re satisfied but I still say AATA is overrated.

I also feel the bus seems to carry a stigma here in AA. But the AATA is much more crowded since they expanded the programs for people to get free passes (especially since all U-people now ride free). Maybe that will help—this is a great time for them to expand service.
posted by Karen Smith on August 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 pm
I would encourage everyone to Vote for John Roberts for 1st Ward council. He has a proved track as a businessman of being fiscally responsible and that is what we need on Ann Arbor City Council.

I believe that Mr. Suarez has some good issues, but if he truly wanted to be on council he should have applied for the vacant position. I think that $40 million that the city is giving for the buildings are proof that John Roberts knows about fiscal responsibility.

I am also would encourage voters to cast their vote for Wendy Woods for Mayor. Mayor John Hieftje does not deserve to be re-elected.
posted by A2 Democrat on August 6th, 2006 at 9:21 am
That is the most senseless reasoning I have ever heard. If he wanted to be on council, he wouldn’t have run, he would have sought appointment? Come on.
posted by Dale on August 6th, 2006 at 9:42 am
I agree that John Roberts is the choice for the first ward. However, I disagree about the Mayor’s race. Wendy Woods has said nothing as to WHY she is running against the Mayor, except that City Council is too “closed” to people. Well, if that is true, then she is part of the problem. So far, she has done nothing on Council, while John Heiftje has introduced many new innovative programs to save energy and benefit the environment, as well as to make the city government more efficient.
posted by realDemocrat on August 6th, 2006 at 9:42 am
If you want Easthope, I think you’ll you’ll have to make the effort to vote for him. Because AAiO is right about the number of Schmerl signs sprinkled throughout the 5th Ward.

Appropos of signs, a possible sign of desperation in her campaign was the neon-green Schmerl flyer stuffed in my door yesterday, which highlighted the fact that the A2 News had endorsed Easthope. And then pointed out that the A2 News also endorsed … George Bush. Is that the best case you’ve got to persuade me to vote for you, Sonia? Is that even a case? Anything else at ALL? I mean, how about promising not just a REAL GREENWAY NOW, but a REAL NEON-GREEN WAY now. Just like the color of the flyers. You know. Come on. And if you’re just going to call people names, then try to do it in an interesting way. Here’s an example: “Easthope is a punk-assed pussy!” Now, try your own, by filling in the blanks. “Easthope is a punk-ass ______”. Or this one “Easthope is a _____ pussy.” From back in some foreigh-language teaching methods course, I think I remember that’s called a ‘pattern drill’. Or maybe it’s a Cloze test. I’m just glad to finally have some practical use for it. For the record, I do not believe that Chris is a punk-assed pussy.

But speaking of which, the A2 ran a story a couple of days ago about the explosion of the cat population locally. I wonder if the impact extends to the 5th Ward and whether this has been orchestrated by Schmerl to generate more support (See reference above to Cats for Sonia), or whether it’s just a coincidence, in which case, I wonder if she is using her existing feline base to reach all these new kitties: “Remember to bury your shit, when you go into the litter box on Tuesday”

I’ll be burying mine, that’s for sure. See you at the polls.
posted by HD on August 6th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Yes, Tuesday is coming up very soon. It’s good time to move away from a lighter tone at mid-thread and return again to ranting. I’m happy to join in, too.

Whenever the all-greenway-everywhere faction is seen or heard, whether in the Fifth Ward or elsewhere in town, it keeps calling to mind the “Reagan Democrats” of suburban Detroit, circa 1980. The connection has to do with those young unionists of the late 30s who had, by the 60s, morphed into pro-war, ‘hard hat’ Democrats and then a decade later evolved into Reagan supporters. As they passed through middle age with stable middle-class incomes, this group maintained firm support for labor unions & collective bargaining while gradually identifying more with the Republican Party in other areas, especially on cultural issues. Nixon tried to exploit this, but it was the Reagan campaign that really hit pay dirt. By 1980 we had the spectacle of significant numbers of older, blue-collar, union suburbanites voting with delight for a politician whose administration then proceeded with determination to lower their standard of living.

A roughly parallel evolution in outlook has developed over the past generation for a demographic portion of the young environmentalists of the 1970s. Thirty years on, they, too, have become middle-aged homeowners with established careers. Their environmental values remain firm, yet over time they’ve gradually adopted a number of other values typical of suburban homeowners, or of urban “homesteaders” who gentrify older city neighborhoods. The result is a variation of moderate Republicanism that finds public expression through greenish-sounding arguments.

For instance, it’s been alleged elsewhere (on Arbor Update?) that certain greenway advocates sought to build support by stating that a park on First & William — very much unlike a parking structure or other uses — will enhance the green in neighborhood property values as well as the green along the streets. Meanwhile, as the current U.S. population approaches 300 million (up from 180 million in 1960), they make arguments in standard Republican subdivision fashion that seek to push additional density into someone else’s neighborhood, or more preferably into someone else’s city. They’ve got their careers — and nice homes in the OWS and in other neighborhoods — so the rest of us should just move along and fend for themselves elsewhere amid the struggling economy. Practically speaking, this represents “environmental justice” as promoted by the full-greenway-only position. The partial-greenway scenarios, on the other hand, make some effort to take into account urgent social needs such as cheaper housing or mass transit (while still adding significant new park space), yet many full-greenway proponents respond to this with horror.

Full-greenway-only advocates have more in common with neighborhood groups like the one that tried so hard to stop Avalon Housing’s Carrot Way project than with activists such as Earth First who take a markedly non-middle-class approach. While it’s not true of every full-greenway advocate, too many will devote countless hours to shutting down a nearby development while also claiming they “just don’t have the time” to work on affordable housing, a living wage standard, transportation, or retail diversity in downtown areas.
posted by hale on August 6th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Well reasoned and well said Hale. One small item. The City passed a living wage ordinance in 2001 shortly after Heiftje was elected. Mayor Sheldon had vetoed it in 2000. It extends to all contractors who do work with the city.
posted by Dustin on August 6th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Campaign finance information and maps for all candidates are available over at Arbor Update.
posted by Dale on August 7th, 2006 at 9:47 am
good job.

heh.
posted by peter honeyman on August 7th, 2006 at 9:54 am
HD, word on the street is that Schmerl’s material was written by Doug Cowherd.
posted by Brandon on August 7th, 2006 at 10:44 am
An email from Rene and Matt Greff of Arbor Brewing Company that is going around:

“Hi everyone,

In case you ran across a mean-spirited and deceptive lit piece going around town, I thought I’d provide a little background information. The piece was authored by Doug Cowherd and is sadly being distributed in the 5th ward by people Matt and I thought were our friends from the old Dean for America now Democracy for America group. And I am sure that many of you who were founding members of DFA are going to be as saddened as I am to have our organization connected to this kind of activity.

The gist of the piece is that incumbent 5th ward councilman Chris Easthope is in the pocket of downtown developers and the evidence for that is that he lined his pockets at a big fundraising event held by downtown property owners and developers who don’t even live in the city.

So in case you were scratching you head trying to figure out which big, evil, most likely right-wing out-of-town developer it was that raised $8,000 for Chris’ campaign – it was me and Matt.

Now first of all, I wish we were property owners in Ann Arbor (if we were maybe we’d have a car with air conditioning). And second, while it is true that we don’t live in the city, we live within easy biking distance (9 miles) and have certainly spent more time and money in Ann Arbor over the past 11 years than anywhere else. It’s not like we live in Santa Barbara and collect rent checks from the Arbor Brewing Company. We’re committed owner-operator-renters who are very involved with our business and our community.

To imply that we are carpet-bagging developers only interested in maximizing our own profits at the expense of the city is unfair and, frankly depressing. Ours is a great community of activists and I certainly don’t mean to imply that our efforts are greater than anyone else’s, but like many local progressive business owners, we have spent many tens of thousands of dollars and hours using our business to support progressive causes and candidates like Michigan Peaceworks, Planned Parenthood, Ecology Center, Sierra Club, Alma Wheeler Smith, Liz Brater, Lynn Rivers, and of course Howard Dean to name but a few. We have always tried to give more back to Ann Arbor than we have taken, have readily agreed to serve on boards and task forces, have worked to expand commercial recycling and composting downtown, and have fought against spending tax dollars to support developers. And have hosted and supported DFA for over three years.

Now since the smear flyer doesn’t mention us by name, this really isn’t about us, of course. To me, however, it is a frightening harbinger of things to come. I don’t know Chris’ opponent Sonia Schmerle personally but I have to assume she is a good and decent person who truly wants what’s best for her ward. But unfortunately, she was either unwilling or unable to stand up to Doug Cowherd and refuse to distribute his divisive and misleading message. It is so ironic to engage in republican-style dirty tricks to try and convince voters that you are the more progressive candidate. And I should also say that I was appalled to hear that the person distributing the flyers was also taking down Chris’ lit pieces. If this isn’t illegal, it is certainly not a shining example of our democratic process.

The reason I supported Chris Easthope strongly enough to hold a fundraiser for him - even though he opposed the parking structure I fought for - is that he is a true progressive in the best sense of the word. True progressives are not knee-jerk ideologues doing the bidding of any group that we might label pro or anti-development or anything else. And true progressives don’t use republican style black and white rhetoric to bully voters. (That’s probably why we lose so often – we feel compelled to acknowledge that the issues are complicated and not easily encapsulated in 30 second sound bites.) Chris is smart, creative, compassionate, and honest. He is a strong leader and I have seen him stand up to the mayor and his colleagues on council many times. He has fought for affordable housing, living wage, and the rights of the disenfranchised in our community. He has also listened to the concerns of independent owner-operators like us and understands the careful balance between encouraging urban growth and protecting the charm and character that makes ours one of the best downtowns in the state. He is not afraid to be the lone voice –but he also doesn’t relish it. He has tremendous leadership and a depth and breadth of knowledge that the city needs now more than ever as it faces tough contract negotiations and difficult decisions about the future of our downtown.

Just wanted to make sure that the truth isn’t the big loser in tomorrow’s election.

Thanks for your time

p.s. come celebrate our democracy at the Rebekah Warren election night party at Arbor Brewing or the Paul Schreiber election night party at the Corner Brewery.

Cheers!

Rene & Matt”
posted by Interesting. on August 7th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
If folks are going to post arguably pro-Warren material (or mails containing such)…have a look at my series about the Warren campaign at Arblogger, over the last four days.
Also, my new Arblogger post shows an unattended John Roberts campaign sign on UM property, though it may be gone by now…why not just hang a 100’ x 100’ banner from Michigan Stadium? That would be much worse; but still, the same basic principle…
posted by David Boyle on August 7th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Just curious — have any of the Lowertown developers started marketing the river as a central greenway yet? How about people on the other side of the river?
posted by A Different Jon on August 8th, 2006 at 4:26 am
A Different Jon,

I’ve not seen/heard DEVELOPERS marketing the river as a central Greenway yet (but I miss a lot); however, I perceive some increased local chatter about the idea of ‘greening up’ downtown by creating more direct walkable/bikeable corridors between downtown and the RIVERWAY. This, as a higher priority for allocation of resources than, say, constructing a full-scale Greenway along Allen Creek. Dave DeVarti, as one example, has mooted something along these lines in the last week or so, as have some commenters over on AU.
posted by HD on August 8th, 2006 at 8:49 am
I’d endorse that (and am not disagreeing with DeVarti or HD, I think), but with an emphasis not just on getting to the river more easily:

One of my frustrations with the Greenway people is their emphasis on parks, but I’d like the people who oppose that vision not to just proffer the existing river parks and paths as an alternative. Doing so keeps the vision focused on “recreation”, rather than on making it easy, possible, and safe to move well around town in green ways as ordinary life rather than as a Saturday outing. Successful green path systems I’ve seen in other places work like that, rather than just as a chain of parks in pretty settings (though those are nice too). In other words, not just “more direct walkable/bikable corridors between downtown and the riverway,” but more walkable/bikable corridors in general, traversing the city in several ways and NOT always as just 3 feet scrunched on the edge of roads.

I’d also like a pony.
posted by Aki on August 8th, 2006 at 10:58 am
The major problem with bike paths that are not along the roadway is maintenance. Although they don’t always do a good job of cleaning the snow and ice off bike lanes, at least they can get to them. When they are stand-alone paths, it requires a lot of special maintenance and a special machine. Walking-biking paths are OK for a casual ride but not for commuting cyclists who need to move faster as there are pedestrians in the way. And as above, they are unusable in the winter. They work better in warm climates, maybe here after another 25 years of warming.

In a built out city like A2 it would be incredibly expensive to try to retro fit long paths, they would need to buy a lot of occupied property.
posted by Dustin on August 8th, 2006 at 11:53 am
I know, I know. It’s not impossible but it is expensive, though by “off road” I don’t necessarily *always* mean along a totally different route, just *sometimes* separated by more than a line that drivers ignore, and *sometimes* following a different route that is available without knocking down buildings. And I have seen bike/walk shared paths with good traffic management and courtesy so that bikes can move along fast, though there’s still a responsibility for bikers to recognize that they are faster-moving vehicles. And I’m okay with ticketing bikers who don’t.

Unusable in the winter is a maintenance, thus money, issue–they can be made usable, and it’s not like bike lanes or sidewalks are necessarily kept clear as it is. It is probably prohibitively expensive in the world we’re in, but it’s not impossible per se. I have seen it happen.

But I do get the money issue and the fact that it’s hard to put in new systems in old places. I’m just saying that “green = (acces to) recreational space” is a limited framework, whether coming from a pro or anti-”greenway” perspective.
posted by Aki on August 8th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
As I note on Arblogger , some early returns show Hieftje, Suarez and others winning. (Not vouching for the accuracy of these, and results may’ve changed greatly; posted c. 9:09 p.m.) Looked like a tie, or close to it, in 3rd Ward.
posted by Early poll results (David Boyle on August 8th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Thanks for the info, HD.
posted by A Different Jon on August 9th, 2006 at 6:23 am

Easthope Endorsement

93 Responses to “Easthope Endorsement”

Leave a Reply