ann arbor is overrated.

A Little Too Easy

A group of Easy Street residents were successful in their effort to stop sidewalks from being installed on their street. So much for a walkable Ann Arbor. But we have to wonder why sidewalks, which enhance walkability for the whole city, are paid for by the individual residents of a street, while traffic-calming programs, which almost exclusively benefit the homeowners on a block, are funded by the city when neighborhood groups request them.

70 Responses to “A Little Too Easy”

Let’s think about sidewalks for a second. You can find sidewalks in AA dated back to around 1900 or so. Same size, same stuff, but they lasted longer back then. Has sidewalk tehnology not improved in 100+ years?

Munich Germany has removeable sidewalk blocks, so they can get under them and fix stuff.

Do we need 4 inch thick sidewalks? How about recycled plastic/tires sidewalk blocks, filled with nuclear waste to melt the snow, and skunks?

It’s a thought.
posted by Grandpa on August 22nd, 2006 at 11:48 am
Who walks on Easy St.? It’s two and a half blocks long and dead ends. “A walkable Ann Arbor?” To where? Some dude’s house?
posted by exile on August 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 am
I thought the majority of the complaining wasn’t about the cost, but about the fact that they’d have to shovel them. Wah! Also, they thought they’d be “losing” part of their yard to the city. Dudes, it’s already available to the city, with or without the sidewalk.

I can’t believe the City Council let this get past. Sets a bad “whiners are winners!” precedent.
posted by Chris on August 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
There are many areas in Ann Arbor without sidewalks, and even without paved roads. The residents there seem to not mind walking on the road.
posted by JCP2 on August 22nd, 2006 at 12:56 pm
I looked at the map and I have to echo what exile said. The city arbitrarily decides to tax people to put in a sidewalk on some tiny street that goes nowhere, with the people who live there not even wanting the sidewalk in the first place? What is the point? Did I miss something?
posted by Dave on August 22nd, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Sidewalks are unnecessary in a lot of neighborhoods. It seems like the neighborhood association should have the final say in whether to build sidewalks — especially since they’re the ones that pay for them.
posted by James on August 22nd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Hey, I don’t mind walking on snow. Why should I have to shovel it in front of my house?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 22nd, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Cuz the City says so. Snow removal ordinance
posted by mitten on August 22nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
And somehow I don’t think that if I told the council that 26 out of 29 of my neighbors didn’t want to shovel snow, they would agree that our neighborhood should be exempt.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 22nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
But this is a dead-end street way west of downtown that goes nowhere. I might see the point if it was some useful thoroughfare.
posted by Dave on August 22nd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
er, east. I’m directionally challenged.
posted by Dave on August 22nd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
It’s about a half-mile long and connects to other streets that do go somewhere. And I haven’t heard anyone argue that the sidewalks are unnecessary because no one walks there. The pro-sidewalk people are arguing that people do walk there, and the anti-sidewalk people are countering only that the neighborhood doesn’t want sidewalks.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on August 22nd, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Without sidewalks, the wheelchair users can’t get around.
posted by Michael McC. on August 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Or moms pushing strollers. Or kids whose parents tell them not to walk in the street. Or anyone who uncomfortable walking through their neighbors’ yards.

I don’t often agree with AAIO, but I am with him on this one. The exemption really galls me.
posted by Chris on August 22nd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Um. Actually, Easy street connects to a network of neighborhood streets which effectively link the Bhur Park Pool to the Tappan neighborhoods. It’s a great bike route. Not that I think that they should have sidewalks, especially when I certainly wouldn’t want to have to maintain one myself(!) Maybe the walks should go in and the *city* should keep them clear and maintained?
posted by LittleB on August 22nd, 2006 at 6:42 pm
The lack of community spirit on Easy Street is astonishing.
posted by Young OWSider on August 22nd, 2006 at 7:11 pm
I disagree with the claim that traffic-calming mainly benefits homeowners–and not just because, you know, there are people in A2 who live in neighborhoods as renters–because those can also benefit walkers etc., whether “local” to a street or passing thru, who are also not getting run down or terrorized by speeders. But I’m totally with you on the outrageousness of the Easy Streeters’ win on this. This is a real step back on walkability, no matter how short this particular street is, because it lets stand the idea that neighborhoods get to decide whether or not to be comfortably or safely walkable, disabled-accessible, etc. Calling a sidewalk “unnecessary” at any given moment limits who can or would want to live there in future.
posted by Aki on August 22nd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
In my town, sidewalks are funded 50% by the city and 50% by the homeowner.
posted by 1whonos on August 22nd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Traffic-calming is definitely helpful to pedestrians. Especially when pedestrians are walking in the street, because there are no sidewalks.

Okay, so you don’t want to build a sidewalk, because you don’t want to pay for it or shovel it. What’s the standard rejoinder? Oh yeah. “Well, I don’t have children, so I don’t want to pay for your brats to go to school.” Or, more similarly in magnitude, “Well, I don’t want to have to pay for / maintain a fence - you can just put up with my dog’s pooping in your backyard.”
posted by Murph on August 22nd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
People who don’t shovel their walks in the winter really get on my nerves.
posted by Brandon on August 22nd, 2006 at 9:03 pm
The difference between sidewalks and traffic calming, with regards to who pays for it: You can easily assess an individual homeowner for their sidewalk costs. It’s simply (cost/foot of sidewalk x feet of frontage). For traffic calming costs, you’d need to set up a special assessment district, figure out how far out the positive effects of the calming extend, then figure out how to charge everyone. Otherwise Bob, who has a speed bump immediately in front of his house has to fork out $20K, while Stan next door gets off without paying for any of it.

I kind of like having sidewalks paid for by homeowners. I think it’s just about the only public space that individual citizens are really responsible for maintaining. You shovel the snow and make sure the branches on your trees are clipped. Making the homeowner pay is just part of the fun.
posted by Patrick on August 23rd, 2006 at 8:26 am
I agree with Murph and Chris. And I think Greden’s comment is a little supercilious…
posted by Emilia on August 23rd, 2006 at 8:26 am
We just bought a house without a sidewalk. Frankly I find it a little odd, I didn’t realize there were so many places in AA left without sidewalks. And we do have a faily high amount of foot traffic in our little corner of town. The car traffic is very low so I guess it’s okay to walk in the street, but the street is kind of narrow and I’ve got to wonder how often people get hit by cars here. Especially since so many kids cut through to get to the baseball field on the other side.

Anyway, I’m glad I won’t have to shovel the snow and we really don’t need another large bill right now since all of our money is already sinking into the house. But it really would make sense.

Maybe I’ll make my own sidewalk with a toll booth. After all, it’s the neighbors down the street who will be using it so why not make them pay for it directly?
posted by polychrome on August 23rd, 2006 at 8:44 am
That reminds me of the sidewalks to nowhere that I see in front of subdivisions adjacent to large roads. There’s a nice sidewalk/boardwalk in front of Walnut Ridge on Miller that leads to a bunch of bushes. Across from Liberty Athletic is a new sidewalk in front of the warehouse storage facility that leads into a bunch of weeds. On the north side of Liberty across of I-94 is a sidewalk that leads into a chain fence right before the highway. Oak Valley has a nice sidewalk behind Target and Chuck E. Cheese that leads to a narrow dirt path complete with beer cans and plastic bags. At least the sidewalk on Jackson extends all the way to Zeeb (although when I walked along it last week by the Automall, the only other person I saw was a guy driving a lawnmower).
posted by JCP2 on August 23rd, 2006 at 10:51 am
There’s a lovely bit of sidewalk on Fountain St. that runs in front of a single house.
posted by TMcC on August 23rd, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Well, the only ways to get sidewalks built are,

1. Special assessment to build them over an area, or,
2. Require them to be built project by project.

If people are going to kick and scream and pretend they live on 500 acres in Montana and don’t have to participate in society when the first option is considered, the only remaining option is to slowly build up, piece by piece, and hope they eventually connect.
posted by Murph on August 23rd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
p.s. I’ll give anybody here $10 to throw yourself in front of a car on Easy Street and then sue the city for not having sidewalks there.
posted by Murph on August 23rd, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“p.s. Iâ€™ll give anybody here $10 to throw yourself in front of a car on Easy Street and then sue the city for not having sidewalks there.”

Funny thing is, my first thought was that the City Attorney must’ve been out for lunch when this thing was voted on.

There’s nothing like a nice, easy to read paper trail for an ambulance chaser to base his case on……

How this decision conforms with the ADA, I’ll never know….
posted by todd on August 23rd, 2006 at 6:37 pm
A couple of winters ago I had the unnerving experience to be driving past a jogger who was in the road as there was 18 inches of snow and no sidewalk. At just the moment I was passing this individual he lost his footing and disappeared under my fender; I couldnâ€™t see him anymore. I flipped out and jerked the car away, bracing for the impactâ€¦ which never came. I have no idea how close I was to him and was very happy there was no one in the oncoming lane. Sidewalks are cool, as long as they are shoveled.

todd, about the ADA, it really is about buildings and facilities. The ADA does not require that all sidewalks comply even if that might be possible in the Midwest. Imagine if Mt. Hood and Yosemite had to be fully compliant. Donâ€™t get me wrong there are people who are trying and might argue that Mt. Washington or Arlington Cemetery should be fully accessible but at the moment we are not required to make our world flat. Nevertheless, also a few years ago, I was dealing with a park and was asked if the mulch was ADA accessibleâ€¦ â€œIs there such a thing?â€ I replied. After a little research I found there was. It was mulched twice and then certified by someone to be ADA compliant; the only product of its kind at the time.
posted by abc on August 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Hmm. About the maintenance issue. Some people have arthritis or are old or have other conditions that make it really HARD to do the maintaining of a sidewalk. Perhaps I was being a bit flip when I said that I’m glad I don’t have to. What I should have said was that it would be a physical impossibility for me to maintain a bit of sidewalk and that , in fact, I have to hire a snow removal company to do it for me. I’m not being anti-social, guys, I’m being old and ill. At least I can afford the guys to shovel.
posted by LittleB on August 23rd, 2006 at 10:06 pm
â€œp.s. Iâ€™ll give anybody here $10 to throw yourself in front of a car on Easy Street and then sue the city for not having sidewalks there.â€

Tossing oneself in front of moving vehicle, for the purpose of taking some hard knocks on Easy St., does carry a certain appeal for that performance artist buried somewhere deep inside. In this situation, however, let’s consider employing the communal entertainment approach to local protest often preferred (and effectively used) by the renowned organizer Saul Alinsky in his day. It’s adaptable to many situations.

What Would Alinsky Do? During a hastily arranged sÃ©ance this afternoon, in which the late Saul spoke through the movement of tea leaves, here’s what he suggested:

Have ourselves a “spontaneous” late-summer Sunday picnic in Buhr Park, right off Easy. Just happen to invite dozens of people from around town who have regular reason to use strollers, wheelchairs, bicycles, tricycles, big wheels, two-wheel personal shopping carts, running shoes, luggage on tiny ‘airport’ wheels — you name it. Anything for which a sidewalk is gratifyingly useful. After greetings, relaxation, some snacks and a libation or two, eventually head off as a group onto the not-all-that-Big Easy for a lazy afternoon parade up & down the half-mile street. Recruit some of the folks for a marching band that includes its own plastic (ono) garbage can drum corp (the new black “cans” on wheels, of course). Be sure to have candies to lob gently into the air toward the neighborhood kids, just like in a regular community parade; invite them to join the gang if their parents don’t freak.

On little advance notice, convince as many local/regional media as possible to send someone to cover it. Have a webcam active. Ask A3radio broadcast it live. When confronted by drivers, neighbors or police about blocking the street, mention the difficulty in locating a sidewalk. Record their reactions. If at some point there’s a compelling need to call off the parade due to threat of mass arrest or of imminent altercation with neighbors or drivers drunk on testosterone, enough material may already exist to launch a successful lawsuit on behalf of a future sidewalk — all the while meeting new friends from around town and enjoying an afternoon’s casual fun.

If additional evidence or instigation is still helpful, take out an ad in the Snooze the following week inviting the paper’s readership to join the upcoming Easy Street Parade encore. Guarantee a larger, noisier event. At public speaking time before the city council meeting, act conciliatory by offering council members an honorary place in the front line of the next march down Easy. [In a politic nod to regular public speakers, express solidarity with an immediate end to the Lebanon invasion, and note the spiritual kinship between expansive Buhr Park and the downtown Greenway.]

And, yes, whenever sidewalks get built, the city ought to be helpful toward those unable to shovel snow for health reasons. If the city isn’t, then get dozens or friends together and….

——————————————–
Saul Alinsky, commenting to other organizers in 1971 on the surprising mainstream popularity of radical activism at that historical moment:
“Don’t worry… we’ll weather this storm of approval and come out as hated as ever.”
posted by hale on August 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Thanks, abc, for the explanation. I thought that the ADA applied to public property as well.

I also don’t know if the new sidewalks would be public or private in that area.

Lesson learned.
posted by todd on August 23rd, 2006 at 11:16 pm
todd, It does apply to public property, but basically just buildings and facilities; not as yet to all sidewalks and spaces. The ADA gets weird when you ask about spaces outside buildings (hence my story about mulch) and be careful because if you ask, people will speculate on the answer. While the idea of the ADA could include sidewalks and public access ways the reality is that a lot of these types of spaces cannot meet the code and the code has provisions about reasonableness, natural features, etc. that keeps us from bulldozing mountains. So sidewalks can still follow the natural terrain on Easy Street (if they are built) or in Ann Arbor Hills, regardless of whether they stay under the slopes of the ADA.

In all cases however the sidewalks are considered public. I assume on Easy Street they would be built within the right-of-way as normally the city owns a wider corridor than the actual width of the road. The sidewalk is typically built in this corridor as the city has no right to ask you to provide a public sidewalk on your own land. So for all of you who think that the city is out of order, they own the land they are asking for the sidewalks to be built on; its part of the road right-of-way. The people on Easy Street are mowing city land when they get to the curb.
posted by abc on August 24th, 2006 at 1:16 am
The ADA does govern sidewalks, though. One of my classmates is helping measure a sample of the sidewalk ramps (wherever someone goes into the road from the sidewalk) throughout the city to send to the ADA for certification. Evidently there was a lawsuit on these grounds a year or so ago.
posted by Dale on August 24th, 2006 at 3:57 am
As I said, there are people who are trying, and some have been successful, to make the ADA affect more of our world; there is even a federal guideline book for site issues which, as far as I know, was never adopted. Clearly this is one of the reasons we have depressed curbs at intersections (among other things) within the city. Our downtown is relatively flat but this is not true of all towns. While we can make intersections friendlier to the disabled we cannot change the basic slope from Felch to Kingsley along Main, for example. What if our downtown had been built through that stretch of terrain? The ADA is a civil law and therefore must be pushed with civil suits; this is why you cannot get a ticket for non-compliance. The more you ask about the ADA with respect to site issues the more you go through the looking glass; very quickly you can be a talking about ADA mulch, ADA grass, ADA gravel, the coefficient of friction of mud or sand, maintenance cycles, and degrees of cleanliness. It can take you for a ride. Should we (the city for example) be ensuring that a wheelchair bound person could go to Sunday brunch at Gratzi on December 27th after it snowed a foot the night before? The slope of the sidewalk is just the beginning if you want to get to really accessible.
posted by abc on August 24th, 2006 at 8:46 am
As for ADA and sidewalks, I live on Pauline on a corner lot and about 3 years ago they repaved it and upgraded all the corner sidewalk approachs to have a nice ramp to them.

Then last year, the city had to come back and rip this all out and do it again. Being curious about why they were tearing up a 18 month old sidewalk, I spoke to one of the engineers.

He shook his head and explained the city had lost an ADA lawsuit and they had to fix any sidewalk ramps that were not of a specific degree pitch as well as the run awa from the ramp for some number of feet. The difference, when they were done, was virtually undetectable (I took before and after pics and the diff was 2 or 3 degrees of pitch). One or two freeze/thaw cycles will render that close a measurement mute.

Talking to this engineer, it was clear he felt bad — as he said, the city had been working on updating corner ramps as fast as it could because it was not only compeled but wanted these in place for folks. Then this lawsuit comes across and makes then stop adding new ramps so they can go back and rip out existing ramps and re-do them. His off the cuff estimate of the cost was $2 million and that it would likely set the program for putting in ramps back about 2-3 years.

I’m all up for ADA and appreciate the work folks did to bring it into existinance. But I have to say, experiences like this (which I consider abuse of the spirit, if not the letter, of ADA) can really make you wonder at the real underlying motivations of those bringing such suits.

Gerry

P.S. The city folks did a bang up job on this. I had just put a sprinkler system in (figuring the curb/walk replacement of the season before meant things wouldn’t get mangled for a while). I had a line running under a sidewalk at the border so I could water the extension and while they would have been well within their rights to tear it up, they worked hard and very voluntarily to preserve it. In the end, I didn’t even have to re-aim the sprinkler heads.
posted by Gerry on August 24th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
This is an awesome Ann Arborish thread. We’re talking about a piddling stretch of sidewalk and people are quoting Saul Alinsky and citing the ADA. When in doubt, legislate, litigate, agitate. Hey, hey, ho, ho.
posted by Dave on August 24th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
It seems to me that if the benefit of these sidewalks is for the community at large, or if it is to reduce city’s liability exposure, then it should be paid out of general funds and not become a special assessment for just a few. I’ve got no problem asking those homeowners to shovel, but forcing them to make such a “contribution” now, in the name of community spirit, seems harsh & arbitrary. The poor precedent, IMO, is how long the city has funded its sidewalk program this way.
posted by mcammer on August 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
“It seems to me that if the benefit of these sidewalks is for the community at large, or if it is to reduce cityâ€™s liability exposure, then it should be paid out of general funds and not become a special assessment for just a few.”

So does this mean that all future sidewalks in front of new projects should be paid for out of the general fund?

That’s an interesting stance.
posted by todd on August 24th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
“This is an awesome Ann Arborish thread. We’re talking about a piddling stretch of sidewalk and people are quoting Saul Alinsky and citing the ADA. When in doubt, legislate, litigate, agitate. Hey, hey, ho, ho….”

…. unpaved street easements have got to go!

Solidarity with aerobic people power!
Fight the engines of streetside exploitation!
The time is NOW to draw a line on the grass!
No struggle too small — one step at a time!

“…. while there is a walking class, I am in it; where there is a bipedal element, I am of it; and whenever an urban soul must hoof it on asphalt roadway, I am not free.”
– Eugene V. Debs

[Please note: The duly elected Central Revolutionary Non-Motorized Person’s Committee shall determine the necessary means to provide Easy terms for construction and ongoing conservation upon creation of the People Self-Mover concrete cultural-connection corridor.]
posted by hale on August 24th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Yeah. This is an Absolute Ann Arbor Moment.
posted by LittleB on August 24th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
“So does this mean that all future sidewalks in front of new projects should be paid for out of the general fund?”

Yeah, maybe. When a developer puts in a new subdivision, who pays for the roads & sewers? Sidewalks should be part of that package.

But Easy St is not a new project, at least if I am interpreting that the same way you are. I would not object at all to the city taking on a 10-year project to pave all remaining gravel roads in city limits and add sidewalks wherever needed. FWIW, I have both already and this would only increase my taxes. Spread out over all of us, this would be trivial, wouldn’t it?
posted by mcammer on August 24th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
“Spread out over all of us, this would be trivial, wouldnâ€™t it?”

Well, yes. But this doesn’t seem to be the direction that most Ann Arborites seem to want to take.

Witness the 202 project that was just killed. Some on Council seem to think that a developer is nothing more than the City’s personal checkbook; that developers are somehow obliged to pay for things that benefit the community, while current citizens have no such obligation (Easy St. example).

I find it annoying and hypocritical. What do you think Council would say about a proposal for a new 8 story project that didn’t have sidewalks? They’d flip out, right? How would they react if the developer said “well, we took a poll back at the office, and we decided that we don’t want to pay for sidewalks, plus maintenance is a hassle. So it’s cool of we just 86 them, right?”

I would not object to your 10 year project at all. I just have a difficult time dealing with those who are loose and fast with other people’s money, yet are not willing to pay their fair share.
posted by todd on August 24th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Todd, maybe we find common ground on asking for consistency. If the city wants certain rules on heights, setbacks, sidewalks, whatever, that’s fine. Write them up *but stick to them*. Don’t make every permit an opportunity for negotiation/extortion. If affordable housing is such a gosh darn priority, let’s put through a millage and build some. Oh no, that would be too straightforward, and wouldn’t stand a chance of passing. But we can squeeze it out of these guys who need our permission and make a small number pay for what the large number won’t.
posted by mcammer on August 24th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
You and I are on the exact same page.
posted by todd on August 25th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Oh, and from what I’ve been told, Council has tried to get a millage for affordable housing. It apparently made many citizens really, really angry. So you’re right. It wouldn’t stand a chance of passing.

However it’s OK to make the developers pay for affordable housing because people are either too stupid or just don’t care that the developers are just going to shift the costs of the ‘affordable’ units over to the rest of the units……which essentially means that current City strategy is to make new arrivals to our City pay for the affordable housing.

And, of course, the old citizens will complain about how all the new units are really, really expensive.

It’s a neat trick.
posted by todd on August 25th, 2006 at 10:21 am
After the category of “sidewalks that lead to nowhere” my second-favorite category is “sidewalks on big wide streets where hardly anyone walks anymore, and where big SUVs rumble by on the road between, guzzling gas.” For those of us who still resist buying a car, there is a feeling you get walking on such roads like no other…

PS: On a millage for affordable housing, isn’t is so much better to do it the way we’ve done it in Ann Arbor? To let the home prices spiral out of control, and then let it come crashing down around the homeowners’ ears? Last time I was in town, I talked to a guy across the street from my parents, who bought his place 3 years ago and did renovations. Now he’ll be lucky to sell it for what he paid for it.
posted by Daniel on August 25th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I’m starting to wonder about the ‘affordable housing’ thing as an issue. I live in what is probably the most affordable, *and* the most liveable/pleasant/safe neighborhood in the city. We’re right near easy street (to circle back, somewhat, to the topic). In The Village we are having a hard time selling townhouses for, like, $70K. I should think that would be considered affordable. I guess Ann Arborites wouldn’t want to live in a house that they could actually afford. Hmm.
posted by LittleB on August 26th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
>

Hey Joan,

I live in Easy Street, and I have neighbors who have lived on the street for longer than you’ve probably been in office. They even say themselves that if it wasn’t for the fact that they bought their homes so many years ago, they could never afford to live on Easy St. Furthermore, Easy Street has plenty of first-time homeowners (such as myself), and to impose a $3500 bill on us is overwhelming, to say the very least. WE CAN’T AFFORD IT, end of discussion.
posted by Sean on August 28th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
according to the ann arbor news article:

“To add the sidewalks, the city was going to tack on a $2,447 tax assessment for residents along the street.

“Prior to the final vote Monday, the council approved a plan that would have cut the tax assessment in half with the city footing half of that original $2,447 bill. It became moot when the overall assessment failed.”

i.e., $1,223.50
posted by PoV on August 28th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Thanks, PoV. I wonder where Sean got the $3500 from? Sean?
posted by Young OWSider on August 28th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
We may never know, because Sean “ended the discussion” with that little … um … what would the word for that be? … disingenuity?
posted by PoV on August 28th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Furthermore, special assessments are levied over a number of years, at least ten in my experience. So the $1,223.50 would then impose a burden of just over $10/month to the huddled masses on Easy Street. Ouch.
posted by Jeff Dean on August 29th, 2006 at 8:27 am
“The Village” is not so affordable as it seems. Co-op association fees cost you over $300 per month, and a large portion of your mortgage is locked in at a 30 year 9.5% interest rate and can’t be paid off early. The low sticker cost of the Co-op units is only the good part of the story.

(It is a good neighborhood, though. You can walk (on sidewalks!) to Bombay Grocers, and the Euro Market, and the other international stores on Packard at Platt.)
posted by Nitro on August 29th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Young OWsider asked: “I wonder where Sean got the $3500 from? Sean?”

The $3500 figure was apparently the number estimated before the $2447.34, which was further reduced by half, as PoV mentions above.

From the text of the resolution:

“Based on bids received for this project, the projected amount of the special assessment would be $107,682.96 or 69.46% of the estimate approved by the second resolution, reducing the cost from $3,523.51 per parcel to $2,447.34 per parcel. The payments will be spread over a period of six years.”

Othewise put, Sean wasn’t making up numbers out of whole cloth, just not citing the one last considered by Council.
posted by HD on August 29th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Even at the original numbers, I’m having a hard time seeing how you could afford a down payment, a mortgage, property taxes, utilities, maintenance, etc., and still be in a position such that $3500 over 6 years is something you “CAN’T AFFORD…, end of discussion”.

Granted, anything could be the last straw if you happen to be in exactly the wrong spot financially, but $40 a month?
posted by Bruce Fields on August 29th, 2006 at 10:56 am
… and is it possible that the whole block is down to their last dimes at the same time! Is this a commune or something?
posted by abc on August 29th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I think the Village is still pretty darn affordable. The association fee is much less in my case - it sounds like perhaps the $300 you cited also included property taxes? Regardless, a 2 bedroom co-op will run the average person $850-$1150 a month depending on how much your co-op costs/how much you put down/etc. This is for everything - mortgage(s), association fee, taxes, and water. A 1 bedroom is less, though probably by only $50-100.

The 9.5% mortgage for the land (the other one is a personal mortgage for your co-op) is annoying, but ok. They’re going to switch it to a lower rate when they can in 2009, and I have mine in a 15-year mortgage.
posted by Lisa on August 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Well, sure, I’m in agreement, if around $1150 a month for a 2-bedroom qualifies as affordable. I do realise you can do much worse.

It’s not an exceptional deal for Ann Arbor, that’s all.
posted by Nitro on August 30th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
My monthly for my place is much less. I just paid my co-op down to the ground when I bought it. I still have the land mortgage and fees, but it’s dirt cheap and the cost of lawns and sidewalks are baked into the fees. It’s a pretty good deal, and I’m just suprised that the huddled masses aren’t in line a bit more to get in.
posted by LittleB on August 30th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Right, or if you consider it “affordable” to pay -like- $25,000 down on a co-op unit, and then still have monthly payments of -like- $700 (which go up every year by $25-$50 when the co-op raises its association fee), then it’s not a bad deal.

What is affordable, anyway? Anyone?
posted by Nitro on September 1st, 2006 at 8:25 am
From this 2002 report [PDF file], here’s a couple of excerpts:

“Affordable: Housing which costs the resident 30% or less of
their gross income, regardless of income level.”

“For 2002, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development established Ann Arborâ€™s median income for a family of four as $76,000 and a Fair Market Rent of $765 for a two-bedroom unit.”
posted by HD on September 1st, 2006 at 9:42 am
Funny how those definitions change. The old standard (as recently as 1980) was that rent of 25% or more of gross income was excessive. The population of households which paid 25% or more of income in rent were singled out in census reports for special attention, and housing programs were designed to address the needs of that population.

In other words, 25% was the CEILING, the highest that anyone should normally be expected to pay. Now 30% is the FLOOR, the goal for achieving housing affordability.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on September 1st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Thanks, HD. So, again, not seeing the exceptional value there. If you can afford a large downpayment, you can get your monthly payment down to an “affordable” level. But then, your downpayment wasn’t affordable. If you can’t afford a big downpayment, you’ll be paying more than the average rent around Ann Arbor.

But it’s not rent, of course. You might be building some equity, if the co-op isn’t incompetently managed. Which I refrain to speculate on.
posted by Nitro on September 1st, 2006 at 10:40 am
With all due respect, Larry, 1980 is not so recent. That may as well be the Victorian age as far as standards for personal finance go. Use of credit is much greater now. Personal finance has been liberalized, and people have been given greater freedom to choose their own limits (not always to their benefit). I remember being told in high school back then how important it was to establish a credit record so banks would trust you with a mortgage later on. Ha, now I can’t get the mail without wading through the “easy refinance” offers.

It sounds like the government’s definitions have changed from 25% being “excessive” to 30% being “not affordable”. That doesn’t sound like a huge change to me, though doubtless the intervening years have seen a decline in programs to help people with rent. I pay 40% of my monthly income for housing PITI me!

Funny how those definitions change. The old standard (as recently as 1980) was that rent of 25% or more of gross income was excessive. The population of households which paid 25% or more of income in rent were singled out in census reports for special attention, and housing programs were designed to address the needs of that population.

In other words, 25% was the CEILING, the highest that anyone should normally be expected to pay. Now 30% is the FLOOR, the goal for achieving housing affordability.
posted by mcammer on September 1st, 2006 at 11:54 am
So, in conclusion, the rise during the last 25 years in proportion of income that goes toward rent is but a small price to pay for a great increase in our cherished freedom to build heavy personal debt. In reality, then, Reagan’s promise of “trickle down” economics really worked! Today, U.S. consumers collectively achieve heights of mountainous debt which mirror that of the Reagan federal budget some twenty years ago. As middle class incomes continue to decline (adjusted to inflation), spending what we don’t have keeps the economy humming. As a country, we owe a great debt to our credit.
posted by hale on September 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I am glad a bank let me *choose* to take on this much debt so I could be in a house now, rather than make me wait until I met somebody else’s standard of what was “affordable”. If other individuals make that choice, I see no problem with that. If my government chooses to go into debt, I expect to have a say in that.
posted by mcammer on September 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Nitro. I didn’t put much money down - certainly way less that the 25K you referenced. As well, my fees are more like $200 per month and that may include taxes ( I’d have to check my paperwork). The fees increase close to $12 per year. Right now, I have more equity in my house (coop) than many people I know in big, free-standing houses. I don’t argue your right to make, well, whatever darned choice you may wish(!) In fact, best wishes, but I did want to repeat that the coop has been a good and affordable deal for *me*.

Mcammer - Good luck on that.
posted by LittleB on September 2nd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Mcammer — It’s fine if banks, retailers and other institutions now give you and I more flexibility when taking on loans, credit or mortgages. Used very judiciously, the additional options can be to our benefit.

The aspect of the economy to which I alluded (3 comments above) is the determined effort by many of us in the middle class to maintain material living standards — or in some cases simply financial survival — while our overall purchasing power continues to steadily erode. This is done mostly through building up greater and greater per capita personal debt. The growing financial commitment happens under the assumption of a minimally interrupted flow of personal income for many years into the future. Job loss followed by a period of unemployment quickly leads to personal financial crisis; bankruptcies and defaults on mortgages have been on the rise. The net effect of fueling the economy through ballooning personal debt may in the end turn out similar to the results ganied through buying stocks “on margin” during the 1920s. One useful reference article is here.
posted by hale on September 2nd, 2006 at 5:58 pm
As a resident of Easy St. I really enjoyed the banter of this blog.

I too was dissappointed at the outcome of the sidewalk vote. Just some history the $3500 is what residents were told. We were never informed of the $2500 bid and the 50% general fund help.

There are some of us working very hard trying to get this issue back on the table and hopefully get sidewalks this time.
posted by Pam on October 9th, 2006 at 11:09 am

A Little Too Easy

70 Responses to “A Little Too Easy”

Leave a Reply