Avery Knavery
The steady stream of letters to the News about the Avery House project has to be one of the most bland, uninspired NIMBY campaigns we’ve ever seen, but today’s just about takes the giddy biscuit. Where you’re expecting a soaringly metaphorical rhetorical-question leadoff, the writers go for the literalistic clunker “Would you accept the construction of an enormous building — a building larger in square footage than city hall — in your residential neighborhood?” But they partially make up for it with some vivid imagery: “The Avery House condominium development goes before City Council tonight, with the specter of the neighborhood near Hunt Park, in north-central Ann Arbor, being degraded permanently.” Well, here we thought it was just the neighborhood being degraded permanently, but if it’s the specter of the neighborhood, that’s a different matter.
My take–which indirectly references your website–, at People’s rebellion at AACC tonight, plus “annarborcitycouncilisoverrated.com”, & chickens. . .
posted by David Boyle on June 18th, 2007 at 10:58 pmThe Avery folks made the same basic mistake as the Spinal Tap band did in planning for their Stonehenge scene, except this time in reverse.
To meet building max height requirements, they got data for Cahill’s height in total inches. A low level pencil pusher at their office must have accidentally removed one of the notches from the inch symbol. A short time later, viewing his size in total feet instead of total inches, Avery assumed keeping the construction under 54 feet would leave it about a dozen below the forehead of Dave, now believed to be either Yao Ming’s taller American distant cousin or possibly Man-Mountain proof that we all live in Lilliput.
Plenty safe to meet community standards, or so they thought.
posted by withering heights on June 19th, 2007 at 5:33 pmPlease, refresh my memory … isn’t the rear of City Hall on a residential sidestreet?
posted by A Different Jon on June 20th, 2007 at 5:22 amThe north side of City Hall is across from residential stuff on Ann, yes. (Mainly old houses with grad students living in them, I think. Well, that’s the way it seemed when I was a grad student living there, anyway….)
posted by Bruce Fields on June 20th, 2007 at 5:02 pmavery house is just an example of the healthy stream of underlying racism in ann arbor. white folks (usually educated middle class) in the neighboorhood are worrying that the black elks are going to have a development built on their property that will encourage more (poor) blacks to move into instead of out of this neighboorhood. if this were the zal gaz grotto club selling out i really doubt there would be any peep from the locals.
posted by pam on June 24th, 2007 at 10:49 amI keep hearing this notion that Ann Arbor is a deeply racist community, and I’m used to nodding sagely when this pronouncement is made. I mean, I’m sure that upper middle class white American residents here, brought up in a society where color matters, are no less racist than equivalent folks in San Francisco or Pittsburgh or Madison.
But I’m finding it hard to sit still for the notion that Ann Arbor is somehow unusually or especially racist and that this explains a whole lot of what happens here.
Item: Ann Arbor ranks extremely low on statistical measures of housing segregation, whereas most other Michigan metro areas (Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, etc.) rank at the top.
Item: Ann Arbor’s electorate is overwhelmingly white, and there are no majority-minority wards or districts (or anything even remotely resembling such), yet we have elected a lot of African Americans to local government positions, e.g., Wendy Woods, Pat Vereen Dixon, Christina Montague, Karen Cross, Cheryl Garnett, just to name a few.
Item: I don’t have stats to prove this, but I think interracial marriage is much more common in Ann Arbor than in other communities with comparable demographics — and this extends to the city’s leadership. If a white planning commissioner or city councilwoman has a black partner, is it really fair to accuse them of making land use decisions based on racism?
No, I’m guessing that a white Elk organization would have had even less chance of getting Avery approved than the black one did. Who would have taken seriously the notion that a bunch of aging white guys deserved a zoning variance to keep their clubhouse in place?
As for the Zal Gaz Grotto, which is near my house, it is located in a commercial strip on West Stadium, with its parking lot crammed with new Chryslers from the dealership next door. Construction of larger and taller replacement buildings in the vicinity has been nonstop lately, without a peep of objection from any neighbors. Not exactly a bucolic wooded hilltop in a residential area.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on June 24th, 2007 at 11:43 amAnn Arbor IS racist by many standards, but it’s infinitely better than the vast majority of Michigan. It is absolutely not better than Pittsburgh (which, admittedly, is not perfect).
Item: I can walk down the street with my boyfriend (who is of another race) and I don’t feel physically in danger, but people still stare. A great deal. More than I’ve experienced in any other city. But, no one’s burning a cross on my lawn, so gee, I guess I should be grateful I’m in such a tolerant town.
The problem isn’t necessarily the staring (although it is obnoxious and rude). The problem is the degree to which Ann Arborites pat themselves on the back about how accepting they are about minorities.
posted by Pants Rule on June 24th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI used to shave my head, primarily b/c i’m losing my hair/going gray. i did this for about a month, at which point i could no longer handle the kkk/neo-nazi/skinhead remarks from people walking around downtown. I would expect that in other places, but I’d kinda thought I’d get nothing more than a few dirty looks here. Like Pants said, it’s more about the holier-than-thou attitude that everybody in AA has.
posted by TD on June 24th, 2007 at 11:33 pmLook, I came from East Lansing, graduated from MSU, and I know all about Ann Arbor’s holier-than-thou. The high level of snobbery locally is one of the reasons that so many come flocking to this site.
All that being said, there are places in this country (including “sophisticated” Northern cities) where racial bias plays a role in practically every political and business decision. I’m glad to hear that Pittsburgh is tolerant, but I’m sure you know Philadelphia is the absolute opposite. And metro Detroit is the poster child for a region beset by segregation, ignorance, and intolerance.
Whatever criticism you might have about Ann Arbor (and look at the archives here, I have plenty myself), I don’t think racism deserves a place at the top of the list. Class issues, sure, but that’s not the same thing.
Obviously I’m a middle-aged white guy myself, so I’m in no position to feel racism directly, but do I know and work with a lot of people in black/white marriages or relationships. And shaved heads are not uncommon in my circles (I can think of a couple county department heads). And I don’t hear any of these folks complain about the way Ann Arbor treats them. My participation in A2-bashing is well known, but not one has told me they’re eager to get out to a more tolerant place. Maybe they’re not as sensitive as you.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on June 25th, 2007 at 1:22 amMaybe it’s a bunch of people in from Ferndale or Livonia for the evening making the comments.
posted by Chris on June 25th, 2007 at 9:36 amAgreed–there’s a serious class issue here which far surpasses the race issue. But the very, very serious Michigan race issues do present themselves in Ann Arbor, and it does need to be addressed. I wish people would stop ignoring it and stop pretending that they’re superior. Also, I have to add that most of the mixed-race couples I’ve spoken with have had the same experience of dirty looks/staring/etc. I’ve also not heard so many racist jokes since junior high. (I was once having a beer in Ann Arbor, and a guy tried to pick up my friends and myself with some oh-so-charming racist jokes.)
It reminds me of the general attitudes (anecdotally, again!) towards gay people around here. Sure, you can walk with your same-sex partner down the street without fear of physical attack, but aside from the incessant staring, it’s still perfectly acceptable to use the word “fag” as an insult/joke/whatever. That is, as long as you add “not that there’s anything wrong with it.”
DISCLAIMER: All of these assertions are based on my limited experience and the limited experiences of my friends.
posted by Pants Rule on June 25th, 2007 at 1:12 pmlarry, i’m not being sensitive about the issue, which extends beyond me and my no-hair look. what i’m being is perplexed by a town full of people who throw around words like “diversity” and “tolerance” but then cry foul at the thought of dealing with someone from a different income bracket or different race. “oh, i’m tolerant, as long as i don’t have to look at anyone who makes me uncomfortable, suffer any new structures (be they for the greater good) that lowers my home’s appraised value, or drive my car by any sights unpleasing to my eye.”
posted by TD on June 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pmi just got a look at the postings. i guess that i opened a big can of worms here.
larry, i would like to address your first commentary. i think there are a couple of ideas at play which really do serve to showcase the class and racial divides in ann arbor - and - btw- a2 is no better or worse than many other areas for class and race. what makes a2 different is the never stopping claims of inclusion.
“……we have elected a lot of African Americans to local government positions, e.g., Wendy Woods, Pat Vereen Dixon, Christina Montague, Karen Cross, Cheryl Garnett, just to name a few.”
are you kidding me? electing (many perhaps through straight ticket party voting) women or minorities - and few of each when you think about how many positions there are - by far does not make a2 special. it just means a contingency has been met and most voters probably have no idea who these people are.
“Item: I don’t have stats to prove this, but I think interracial marriage is much more common in Ann Arbor than in other communities with comparable demographics — and this extends to the city’s leadership. If a white planning commissioner or city councilwoman has a black partner, is it really fair to accuse them of making land use decisions based on racism?”
did i miss something in the snooze? and, if idid, isn’t this comment slightly backward for the situation? i understand that approval was renigged after complaints by neighboors to the potential project. not before - after. and what does someone’s sex life have to do with it?
“No, I’m guessing that a white Elk organization would have had even less chance of getting Avery approved than the black one did. Who would have taken seriously the notion that a bunch of aging white guys deserved a zoning variance to keep their clubhouse in place?”
ouch! sounds a lot like a racial issue to me - what do you think, larry?
“As for the Zal Gaz Grotto, which is near my house, it is located in a commercial strip on West Stadium, with its parking lot crammed with new Chryslers from the dealership next door. Construction of larger and taller replacement buildings in the vicinity has been nonstop lately, without a peep of objection from any neighbors. Not exactly a bucolic wooded hilltop in a residential area. ”
the bucolic hilltop happens to be owned by a (black) club. not by the nieghboors. i think you know exactly what i meant in my first posting. zal gaz is not a black club. the old north west side where the black elks is located was part of the traditionally black side of town in a2. it was also home to racially mixed families. more income has been coming into the area in the last few years and things are looking up. however, there is quite a lot of real property envy by the mainly white newer neighboors toward the older black owning families here. many of the neighboors seem to feel a sense of ownership over such a nice empty space. but, the elks own it. i doubt that any of those protesting would feel so strongly if it were their property and the $$s were going to flow in their direction.
td’s last posting says it quite well:
posted by pam on June 25th, 2007 at 3:41 pm“oh, i’m tolerant, as long as i don’t have to look at anyone who makes me uncomfortable, suffer any new structures (be they for the greater good) that lowers my home’s appraised value, or drive my car by any sights unpleasing to my eye.” except: avery would probably have raised home/land values in this area for all. too bad. for now the neighboors have their view. but, again, the black elks club still owns that view and i truly hope they find a way to sell/develop in the future despite the crummy neighboorhood.
I noticed the Elks have a “For Sale By Owner” sign in their front yard now.
I still can’t believe that neighbors had the nerve to stand in front of city council and whine that their “nest egg” might lose its value–even after living in this town for 20+ years.
posted by IMBY on June 25th, 2007 at 4:32 pmThere are people who think of Ann Arbor as such a wonderful place that no criticism can be tolerated. I am not among them, for reasons I hope I made clear in this and prior threads.
Ann Arbor has a lot of homeowners, who behave in predictably homeownerish ways. Typical homeowners are concerned about their investment in their homes because it is usually most or all of what little wealth they have. No one should be surprised when homeowners (regardless of their values on ANY other dimension) show up at meetings to criticize a project which they perceive to be bad for their property values.
If you’re an activist who supports a project and want it to be approved, the homeowners can be demonized as greedy, self-interested NIMBYs. If you’re an activist who opposes a project and want it stopped, the homeowners are your valiant allies in the struggle for, e.g., environmental justice or animal habitat or historic preservation or whatever floats your boat.
These kinds of struggles go on all the time, whether the proposed project is low-income housing or an expressway or a nuclear waste dump, and all races can (and do) play this game. Black and Asian and white and gay and Hispanic and straight homeowners all act in exactly the same way, because hardly anyone will sit still for threats to their personal wealth, and because everyone wants to protect what they like about the neighborhood where they live.
Sure, there are racists out there who perceive the world in a racist way — I said so right at the outset. But to slam Ann Arbor homeowners for behaving precisely like all American homeowners is to say that homeowners are automatically racist by definition. Sorry, but that is just silly.
More than that, the decisions on these kinds of issues are not made by simply caving in to any group of homeowners that show up at a meeting. A city that doesn’t let property owners build anything would be sued into oblivion, and rightly so.
I’m of no particular opinion about the Avery project, but I understand the Elks were asking for a lot more than the ordinary right to build what’s allowed in that zoning district. Of course they’re legally entitled to build on their hilltop, and they didn’t need any city council permission for that. For various reasons that made sense to them, they decided that wasn’t enough. They wanted special exceptions of a sort that are not so easy to grant. And apparently it wasn’t a close question, since the city council voted unanimously against it.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on June 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pmA couple of other followups:
As to the African Americans elected to various government bodies, it’s true that there are a lot of positions, and some offices are elected on party-line votes. But the school board is nonpartisan, and even the partisan positions are nominated in often contested primaries. And votes in those primaries, I need hardly add, are dominated by the same longtime resident homeowners who you think are so intolerant.
We don’t have a political boss system here, and nobody has the power to set or meet any “contingency” or fill slates for a “balanced ticket”. The people I mentioned (and many others) ran for and were nominated and elected on their own efforts and merits.
As to the Zal Gaz Grotto — I was agreeing with you that they’d face no comparable objection to building something bigger in place of their one story clubhouse. But that’s not because Zal Gaz is a white club, it’s because the surroundings are totally different, and because a whole lot of bigger buildings have just been built (with no opposition I’m aware of) within a hundred yards of the Zal Gaz site.
I recognize the history of the neighborhood around the Elks lodge, but I’m not sure I follow your argument about it. Would you have preferred that the new white neighbors not have been allowed to move in? Would black homeowners in those same houses have supported the zoning exception? (I’m guessing not.)
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on June 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pmLarry, I agree that homeowners here act like homeowners everywhere. But the difference might be that homeowners here have a self-righteous attitude and holier-than-though stance. No matter what they do, they can pat themselves on the back and say, “there are lotsa blacks in my town, and some of them are even my friends. I’m not racist, so I am certain that when I oppose a real estate development it’s because the development is bad.”
posted by Just a homeowner on June 26th, 2007 at 12:33 am“No, I’m guessing that a white Elk organization would have had even less chance of getting Avery approved than the black one did. Who would have taken seriously the notion that a bunch of aging white guys deserved a zoning variance to keep their clubhouse in place?”
i think that this nixes any commentary about white, asian, black or gays.
“Would you have preferred that the new white neighbors not have been allowed to move in? Would black homeowners in those same houses have supported the zoning exception? (I’m guessing not.) ”
this is desperate. really desperate.
instead of trying to prove an open minded stance - why not simply exercise one and talk openly about the issues of race and class and how they really do affect people - in ann arbor? it is when there is a problem talking about these issues that it is obvious that there is a real underlying issue that needs to be addressed.
posted by pam on June 26th, 2007 at 3:45 amann arbor has a serious race and class divide. real property issues are just one easy forum to play them out in. is the divide unusual? no. you can find it alsmost anywhere you go. but, why would we, living in ann arbor, care to measure ourselves against the equally bad behavior of people someplace else? why not try to change things here where we live? a great and logical starting point is to admit there is an issue.
am i saying that peple here should give up their property value in the name of equality? absolutely not. what i am saying is that the people who so vocally opposed the plan should admit that their position is rooted in a feeling of entitlement both social and economic. it has nothing to do with the actual plan. the entitlement issue goes both ways, but here the flow is really obvious.
“i think that this nixes any commentary about white, asian, black or gays.”
Pam, you don’t seem to have noticed, but the comparison to a white club was part of a response SPECIFICALLY to what you wrote in your original posting: “if this were the zal gaz grotto club selling out i really doubt there would be any peep from the locals.”
As you later clarified, you weren’t talking about Zal Gaz’s location in a commercial strip on Stadium — you were talking about specifically THIS hilltop.
In other words, under your scenario, if this had been a white Elks club instead of black, on that same location, the Avery project would have been approved without even one speaker against it. Apparently you think the ONLY reason why any homeowners showed up to oppose this project was out of sheer, unadulterated racism.
That is absolute balderdash. You haven’t been following local politics very long if you think that ANY proposal for denser new development in the vicinity of ANY homeowner neighborhood would have an easy time getting approved in this town — especially if it required extraordinary hurdles like a zoning change and city council approval.
You also don’t seem to recognize that the argument for keeping the Elks lodge in place, given the history of the neighborhood and the organization, was a positive that helped justify the extra density that normally wouldn’t be allowed there. The same size development that wasn’t the Elks’ last chance to stay in town would never have been taken seriously, let alone been endorsed by the newspaper. The fact that this consideration wasn’t enough to convince the neighbors and the city council to set aside the zoning doesn’t mean it didn’t have any power.
Furthermore, you said explicitly that the Avery proposal, had it been approved, “will encourage more (poor) blacks to move into instead of out of this neighboorhood”. But that makes no sense either. The proposal was for high-priced condos, with a huge extra premium for the great view. Given the demographics, the residents of those condos would be predominantly affluent white folks. And indeed, that is the kind of profile the Elks needed to take maximum advantage of the property.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on June 26th, 2007 at 9:22 am“instead of trying to prove an open minded stance - why not simply exercise one and talk openly about the issues of race and class”
I’m not trying to prove that homeowners are open minded. Homeowners are motivated by the same considerations everywhere, always have been, always will be. Yup, people have a “feeling of entitlement” to the value of the homes they own, regardless of their race or income. If you think Ann Arbor homeowners are different, or ought to be different, then you are buying right in to the exact same self-righteous Ann Arbor exceptionalism you claim to be so averse to.
As I keep saying (and saying and saying), there sure are class issues in Ann Arbor. But they cut across race.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on June 26th, 2007 at 9:37 ami smell a blaine sock puppet.
posted by peter honeyman on June 26th, 2007 at 10:03 amwhat can i say? each time you type you dig a bigger hole. i really hope you don’t live in this neighboorhood. or, were you one of the vocal locals?
posted by pam on June 26th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWrong on every count. I don’t live in the neighborhood, and I was not opposed to the project.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on June 26th, 2007 at 4:35 pmLarry, I am in absolute awe of your ability to keep a straight face while debating someone who accuses you of racism while stating,
i understand that approval was renigged after complaints by neighboors,
a comment that both demonstrates the commenter has no grasp of the development approval process in Ann Arbor[1] and also imagines racism around every turn [2].
For those following at home, some footnotes:
[1] The project had not yet been approved - it had made it through some preliminary approvals, but it wasn’t as if approval was granted and then yanked back. I’m hardly a fan of A2’s process, but at least I understand it before I attack it.
[2] “reneged”, pam. “reneged”.
posted by Murph on June 26th, 2007 at 6:10 pmso… can someone tell me, what IS the Zal Gaz Grotto club? I’ve seen it on Stadium for years and have no idea what it is, who is a member, or why they go there. it’s an odd looking place but ripe for redevelopment, like so much of Stadium. I’d love it if Stadium buildings were 2 or 3 story - heck, with apartments on top- it would make that super-wide street seem a lot more in scale.
posted by KGS on June 26th, 2007 at 6:28 pmZal Gaz Grotto has some kind of Masonic connection.
posted by tom on June 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pmKGS - Especially if the buildings were all at the sidewalk, rather than set back behind grass or parking lots, so that it was actually a human-oriented street. Certainly, with the width of the road, it’ll never look like Main Street Ann Arbor…but it could look like Michigan Ave in Ypsi.
posted by Murph on June 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm“Furthermore, you said explicitly that the Avery proposal, had it been approved, “will encourage more (poor) blacks to move into instead of out of this neighboorhood”. But that makes no sense either. The proposal was for high-priced condos, with a huge extra premium for the great view. Given the demographics, the residents of those condos would be predominantly affluent white folks.”
“For a few years now, the mayor and council have been saying “let’s have more development downtown” to spur business and preserve it as a business district. Avery house was a long way from downtown or even the “fringe.” It was way too big for the site. Racist? Ridiculous, at least 4 of the speakers against the project were African Americans who lived very nearby.”
I think these 2 previous comments pretty much sum up the issue as far as race is concerned. So Pam, give it a rest. That said, hopefully in the end the Elks can get to do something on their property that makes it possible for them to stay there over time. I agree with the council member who said in the News that the city rejecting the project size only at such a late stage is a terrible process.
posted by Jon (yet another) on June 28th, 2007 at 10:34 amRationalism is a funny thing. It can make people justify behaviors and policies that would usually be considered outrageous, if not criminal, but for its role in creating an “objective” field. I love to see a bunch of white people have a “scholarly” discourse on the reasons why race is “not” an issue. Why hasn’t anyone asked the Elks what they think? I know a lot of these “minorities” mentioned in these dialogues, and I am 100 percent certain they would disagree with most of these observations. On the other hand, the “colorblind” perspective is in good company these days, at least with the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. As for whether Ann Arbor is racist, I submit after living in this town for nearly 35 years–not only is Ann Arbor overrated, Ann Arbor is decidedly overracist. I don’t need the permission of white people to have this opinion. Oh, yes, this comment would be from a genuine black person. The Elks deserve an opportunity to give their own comments on the issue. Not everyone sees the universe through the same eyes. Homeowners are as diverse as the range of mortgages. Homeownership is only as diverse as the racial history of property rights in the U.S.
posted by Audrey L. Jackson on June 30th, 2007 at 10:43 pm“…not only is Ann Arbor overrated, Ann Arbor is decidedly overracist.”
Brilliant!
David Boyle
posted by Ann Arbor Is Overracist on July 1st, 2007 at 11:43 amTo Audrey (and also to annarborisoverrated): If you would like to see viewpoints expressed in this space from members of the Elks Lodge on Sunset St., you’re encouraged to contact them and direct them to this web page. Their comments would be a very good and helpful addition. If you should need it, contact information for the Lodge:
http://www.anotherannarbor.org/orgs_detail.php?id=123
Also, I’ll pass along here an another page that notes a few more details about the relevant AA Council meeting. The last line in this post is to the point, even while it drops off in mid-sentence:
posted by First Ward voter on July 1st, 2007 at 3:05 pmhttp://arblogger.com/?p=462
Something kind of off the topic. Reading this post, we were reminded of a favourite golden oldie from The Bus Boys, a band championed early on by Stevie Wonder. Their take on the new urban gentry:
“I see them moving in two at a time,
posted by Carol and Bob on July 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pmAnd, oh-oh-oh; it doesn’t look too good to me!
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
I only want to see them once in a while.
There goes the neighborhood!
The whites are moving in –
They’ll bring their next-of-kin. Oh boy!”