Six-Story Buildings Are Not Healthy For Elks and Other Living Things
Ann Arbor NIMBYs set a new standard for shamelessness: trying to “save” the “historic” Elks lodge by speaking out against a project that just happens to be a six-story building in their proverbial backyards. One bewildered Elks member told the News, “Now, everybody wants to help us…We’ve had our hands out for years, and nobody helped us.'’
The project would, as one resident pointed out, be like sixty Twizzler pieces surrounded by many single Twizzler pieces.
…not to mention the predictable refrain, “this would NEVER happen in Burns Park…”
Who would have thought Burns Park would be the proverbial whipping boy for NIMBYs everywhere? (including the OFW, by the way). I’m beginning to feel sympathy for the denizens of NoBuPa and all of BuPa, for that matter.
posted by OFWinsurgent on December 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pmWhat does OFW stand for?
posted by Patrick Hunt on December 20th, 2006 at 4:18 pmIt really is a bad project. Great building site, but bad project. The planned selling price at this time (it usually goes up) for the condos is $450,000 to $700,000 (plus condo fees) in a neighborhood of primarily under $200,000 houses. The whole site would be covered with buildings or surface parking lots with five to twelve foot retention walls to hold everything on the hill. The developer tried to play the “I’m building a green building so approve me” card, but when pushed, admitted that there were no specifics and that the green would be the first thing to go if they had to make any changes. Then he said they were doing an ADA compliant building which was great until people pointed out that the site was too steep to have ADA compliant sidewalks, most of the condos are multi-level, and there was no bus service directly adjacent, so it was difficult to really believe the ADA claim. The developer kept saying things like “you won’t be able to see the development because of the trees” but then it was pointed out they were planning to cut the trees down. So there were a lot of inconsistencies and missing pieces in the presentation. Also, interestingly, I didn’t hear a single person talk about saving the physical Lodge itself (which I think is a pretty cool building actually), but people did want to keep the Elks as an entity on that site. The new Elks Lodge itself planned for the bottom of the site seemed acceptable to everyone.
posted by Juliew on December 20th, 2006 at 4:27 pmJulie, your personal criticisms are perfectly valid and sensible, as usual.
However, I think that AAIO is miffed at the quotes from the AA News (yeah, I’m sure that the News picked the worst quotes) from some of the residents.
“Tell them to build it smaller and shorter and build it elsewhere,'’ he said. This quote comes to mind. It’s shit like this that makes me wish I had never moved here. These aren’t the liberal environmentalists I was expecting. These are the words of Florida Republicans who, not coincidentally, have the least densely populated large cities in the US.
Then there’s the sudden and wholly phony concern for the Elks lodge. Double lame.
posted by Anonymous on December 20th, 2006 at 4:47 pmWell yes, some of the people obviously didn’t want anything new there and wouldn’t be happy with any development (I mean Lou Glorie is going to say the same thing about any development, regardless of merit). But a lot of the people were very well-spoken and had really good points and concerns, many of them that surprisingly had not been addressed by the developer. (The Twizzler thing was actually really funny). My problem with criticizing the neighbors too much, especially based on an Ann Arbor News article by Gantert, is that it doesn’t take into consideration that they are the people who live there and actually understand the site and the economics of the area. I actually think the Planning Commission was somewhat more concerned about the Elks than the neighbors were, although at least one of the speakers who lived across the street was an Elk, and he was pissed about the project. I know the Elks have been looking for a buyer for some time (the current developer was the original broker for the property), but I’m not sure I believe they have ever gone to the neighbors and asked for support to help them stay at that property, and I don’t think the neighbors ever offered either. So maybe this will be a good thing to get the Elks and the neighbors talking.
posted by Juliew on December 20th, 2006 at 5:36 pmOops. I guess my cookies reset somehow. The anonymous post was mine…..like that was a mystery.
Like I said, there’s some valid criticism in there. I wish to God these homeowners could disseminate a pamphlet on what not to say at Planning Meetings. First on the list is the quote I mentioned above that shows that shows locals in the worst possible light.
And as I also said, I know full well that AANews is going to only quote the NIMBY sounding people. I wish they’d stop doing that. It’s misleading and really annoying.
But that doesn’t mean that that cat didn’t say that…….so that’s still double lame.
posted by todd on December 20th, 2006 at 6:00 pmFolks should bear in mind that what is said at any public hearing has only minimal impact (at best) on what the Planning Commission does.
As Coy Vaughn, head of the planning staff, told a developer a while ago, “we hold the public hearing and then move on.”
posted by David Cahill on December 21st, 2006 at 11:58 amOoooh oooh ooh! Do you have any more Planning Commission hearsay and gossip, Cahill? Tell me; Stephen Kunselman - boxers or briefs? Dying to know!
If these public hearings are so meaningless, why do people even bother showing up? Citizens of Ann Arbor, I beg you - as inferred from Mr. Cahill’s comment - to stop wasting your time. Just grab your ankles, take whatever that dastardly duo of Planning Commission and Developer wants to give you, and learn to enjoy it.
posted by FAA on December 21st, 2006 at 2:59 pmPatrick, OFW stands for Old Fourth Ward, which is a downtown neighborhood of vocal homeowners (perhaps 10%) and absentee landlords (the other 90%) near Kerrytown.
posted by OFWinsurgent on December 21st, 2006 at 10:10 pmUh, you forgot the renters — the real 90%.
posted by Dale on December 21st, 2006 at 10:42 pmgood point
posted by OFWinsurgent on December 21st, 2006 at 11:15 pmThe Old Fourth Ward is also a historic district, like the Old West Side.
Stephen Kunselman - boxers, from his high-profile approach to Council.
posted by Anonymous on December 22nd, 2006 at 12:19 pmOop! My cookies got tossed as well. The comment above is mine.
posted by David Cahill on December 22nd, 2006 at 12:21 pmmerry christmas; http://gaymetalheads.tribe.net/photos/9d9af66c-d5bd-4f30-91e0-baa7e354af24
posted by butto on December 22nd, 2006 at 12:46 pmWell, butto, I’ve about tossed my cookies as well.
posted by LittleB on December 22nd, 2006 at 7:43 pm