This Week in Sidewalk Opposition
The Ann Arbor Golf and Outing Club is none too happy about proposed sidewalks on Stadium and South Main that might cramp their style. The worst-case scenario is pretty dire: “Members are worried that, at worst, new sidewalks would mean realigning one or more holes on the course, which, in a domino effect, might mean changing the entire layout of the course.” When you’ve finally managed to join a club this exclusive (”The wait can be quite long. Members joining in 2006 have been on the waiting list for at least four years”) the last thing you want is city officials ruining it for some, well, pedestrian pedestrians.
Isn’t there already a lightly used sidewalk on the other side of the street?
posted by James on February 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThere’s going to be a public comment about the bridge replacement and all the other stuff, so there will be an opportunity for the golf folks to raise their objections. Part of the reason for a sidewalk on the golfcourse side is due to folks parking on the course for football games and trying to get across stadium. Golf courses move holes for all sorts of reasons. The real pain is when they have to move a green. I’d have to see the holes they’re worried about, but I’m skeptical that they many holes backed up against the fence line with no buffer or drives that would fall below par 3 if a hole was repositioned.
posted by John on February 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pm“Part of the reason for a sidewalk on the golfcourse side is due to folks parking on the course for football games and trying to get across stadium.”
Interesting point, considering that the Golf Clubs arguments against the sidewalk seem to be impact on game day parking revenues and the danger that the sidewalk would encourage pedestrians to cross mid-block. While I support the new sidewalks, it seems the problem might also be solved by shutting down the Club’s game day parking lot.
Also, there was no mention in the article, but isn’t the sidewalk proposed within the public right-of-way? If so, it’s hard to sympathize with a course layout that doesn’t recognize this boundary.
It will be interesting to see just how far Easy Street extends across town.
posted by Scott on February 13th, 2007 at 9:15 pmScott, there’s no way they’d shut down the parking for football games. They claim the can accommodate 2000 cars, and the area needs as much temporary parking as it can get for those games.
posted by Alex B on February 13th, 2007 at 9:54 pmWell, the article said that the club is being assessed for the price of the sidewalk, so I would bet that’s behind their alarmist “domino theory” of com– I mean, hole placement. I noticed that the article took pains to point out that the golf course was established and that the “town grew up around it”.
posted by Anna on February 14th, 2007 at 8:31 amAs a member of AAGO it is very concerning and it will cause major disruptions on the course which include total hole replacements on the 3rd and 6th greens as well as probably the first green as well as large assessments. The problem, as always, is that the City does not work cooperatively, they just come in and demand. They obviously have the ability to assess the club, via its members, but have no way of recouping the same costs from the U of M which will also be impacted but to a lesser degree.Perhaps the city would like to buy the entire property and then we could relocate the club to another site? As to the walking issue… there is a side walk along the other side of Main street,the Pioneer side, but the game day traffic is generally funneled out to Stadium, not along Main street. The right of way was an after the fact development since the course has been there since the late 1800’s. It does have a boundary but the amount of space needed for the sidewalk, from my understanding, would cross that boundary very deeply into the club. This will be an interesting process…
posted by ELN on February 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pmSell to the City? I think they should sell the AAGOC property to UM. Screw the city. You want to jam something down our throats without consulting with us? Fine. We’ll take another huge property off the tax rolls, take the $ from UM, and build a new club in the township. Its already only 9 holes and very cramped anyway.
BTW, the club, while having a long waiting list, is far from the “exclusive” club as inferred above. It costs $ to join, sure, but far less than most other clubs in the area. Frankly, its just another townie hangout that I can walk to.
posted by Alister MacKenzie on February 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pmSell to the City? Sell to the U.? Fuck that. Sell it to a developer! Jesus, you could put like six thirty story buildings on that spot, with great views of the UM golf course and downtown. And you could watch football from the balconies and roofs. Do you know if there are any salamander ponds on the course? Doug Cowherd would shit himself.
Man, if they were really considering selling, that could be the sweetest development in the last fifty years. I’d want to live there just for the easy access to the Pioneer hotties coming and going at the bus stop across the street.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on February 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pmMost perverts don’t have your kind of money to spend, though, Parking Structure Dude! So it’s a limited market…..
posted by Chris on February 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pmChris, you’d be surprised. I’m in, PSD!
posted by Alister MacKenzie on February 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThe proposed sidewalk along stadium is a must simply because of the above mentioned point but also for safety reasons. Too many times I have had close calls with cars pulling out of the golf club and nearly t-boning me… the sidewalk would provide an easement and therefore add greater visibility.
The good old Ann Arbor would have have purchased the golf course and turned it into a community garden. But then again, the old Ann Arbor is dead.
posted by futball fo bo on February 14th, 2007 at 10:20 pm“The right of way was an after the fact development since the course has been there since the late 1800’s. It does have a boundary but the amount of space needed for the sidewalk, from my understanding, would cross that boundary very deeply into the club.”
I don’t think it matters who got there first; ROWs still apply. If the sidewalk (multi-use path, whatever) does veer out of the ROW, that creates a taking on the cities part, right? that is a whole other issue that the article didn’t mention. My guess is that the city plans to stay in the ROW to avoid a takings claim.
Also, I note that the Main St. section is a bike and pedestrian path. I seem to remember the distinction between that and a sidewalk playing a role in who would pay for what when a similar project was proposed on Washtenaw. As I recall, neighbors were not billed for the path because it wasn’t a “sidewalk”. That ring a bell with anyone?
posted by Scott on February 14th, 2007 at 10:34 pm“As I recall, neighbors were not billed for the path because it wasn’t a “sidewalk”. That ring a bell with anyone?”
The bell it rings with me is that for the Washtenaw project, the initial concern was that people with property along the multi-use path would be responsible for clearing snow off the path. But it turned out that its status as a multi-use path meant that the City would actually be responsible for clearing snow.
As far as the assessment of property owners for the construction, I thought that had gone through … with the clarification that it was only property fronting on the path that would be assessed. (Folks who have backyards there along Washtenaw were not, as they feared, going to be assessed for construction.)
posted by HD on February 14th, 2007 at 11:17 pmwho cares about a sidewalk?
posted by jen on February 15th, 2007 at 12:24 amThe Pfizer news published around Feb 2nd are really troubling for our community and devastating for the families affected. But why is it that your blog does not even mention the Feb 2nd news regarding the State’s prosecution of gay families employed by UofM and other state-sponsored entities?? It’s another piece of devastating news - it signals that the state is moving backwards vis-a-vis human rights. Also, it the news makes a flight of intellectual capital out-of-state very likely. Is that a little more comment-worthy than a sidewalk??
Check out Arbor Update if you’re looking for more comprehensive news coverage; the focus of this blog is a little different.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 15th, 2007 at 8:05 ammy oh my!
posted by MacKinnon on February 15th, 2007 at 5:04 pmThat parking structure dude up above sure does sound like he’s some kind of Arbor Over-Rated Alter-Ego! Is interesting to stop by and see what’s happening in this here boys’ room. Be patient now, guys, because in just a few years you all will be old enough to hang with those cutie Pioneer (High?) girls or boys.
Whatever. Everyone knows I think the Huron girls are hotter.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pmIf Parking Structure Dude! turns out to be a priest, would that more accurately make him an altar ego?
posted by Anonymous on February 15th, 2007 at 11:18 pmWell, I prefer miniature golf anyway. You could put a sidewalk and some huge ugly stupid building there and still have plenty of room for a decent miniature course. With windmills and giant clown heads.
posted by Nitro on February 16th, 2007 at 9:27 amAnn Arbor Parks to parking lots?
We are writing about Friday’s AA news article in which counsel members proposed to turn our various parks in and around the city Ann Arbor into temporary parking lots for University of Michigan football games. It is this sort of flagrant disregard of our natural resources that showcases how a majority counsel members no longer reflect the core values of Ann Arbor residents.
The main reasons for having parks within the city is to provide neighbors and friends with an opportunity to meet up and to take a break from daily rigors of life. Whether it’s walking with a trusted pet or cavorting with the kids; the parks are for the people of Ann Arbor not out of town cars!
We pay for this luxury and park maintenance with our tax dollars! We have no interest in having to explain to our son and his friends that the reason we can’t go play in the park is that they’re filled with cars!
Also, for years Ann Arbor residents have asked for dog parks, facilities set aside for dogs and their owners to exercise and play off-leash in a controlled environment. It would behoove counsel members to discuss proposals to enhance the parks rather then turning them into parking lots.
Also, screw golf!
posted by futball fo bo on March 10th, 2007 at 8:43 am