ann arbor is overrated.

We Won’t Be Asking Tom Gantert for Driving Directions

“Council race swerves to the left,” reports the News. So what’s so left about the new group of candidates? They “call themselves more ‘progressive’ than most of the current City Council members.” Well, if they call themselves progressive, then they must be. And as if that weren’t enough proof, they’re all endorsed by Progressives of Washtenaw, an organization that has the word “progressive” right in its name!

“The ‘progressive’ group differs from the majority of the City Council less on development and more on issues like affordable housing,” writes veteran News reporter Tom Gantert. “[Sabra] Briere’s backers have long said the current council is trying to shift affordable housing out of Ann Arbor and elsewhere into the county.”

We’ve been following this campaign pretty closely, and we don’t remember any of the POW!-endorsed (the exclamation point is part of the name) candidates making affordable housing any kind of priority, nor have we ever heard them charge that affordable housing is being forced into the townships. Every indication is that at least Briere and Mike Anglin are pure unreconstructed NIMBY candidates championing the interests of “the neighborhoods.” Does Tom Gantert know something we don’t? Because in the political climate of A2, allowing candidates to claim the “left” label on evidence this slim is something like the media in a normal town presenting a crop of council challengers with the headline, “Council Race Swerves Away from Baby-Sacrificing, Satan-Worshiping.”

45 Responses to “We Won’t Be Asking Tom Gantert for Driving Directions”

Ah, Gantert, you hack. I can’t believe he didn’t interview some former planning commissioners in a local diner for this story, though — is the guy losing his touch?
posted by Dale on July 30th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Good thing less development and affordable housing go hand in hand…
posted by Zach on July 30th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I found Gantert’s article to be odd. Sabra never sought the POW! endorsement, and was not sent a survey by them. She has not been discussing affordable housing. She doesn’t know who her “backers” are who are pushing this issue. I guess it’s good that Sabra has backers she doesn’t know about.

Also, Bill Hanson, who supposedly is active in POW!, told me yesterday that he isn’t.

Oh, well, at least Gantert spelled Sabra’s name right.
posted by David Cahill on July 30th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Gantert represents everything that is wrong with The News these days. He’s aggressive for the sake of aggressiveness, half informed and essentially a lapdog for the paper’s misguided editorial leadership. A real weasel.
posted by Colonel on July 30th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I emailed Anglin and asked about the ‘large, tall and environmentally unfriendly projects, often in residential neighborhoods’ (quote from his website) which he thinks Council has been approving. I asked him which projects he was referring to - he responded to my email, but completely ignored that question. Guess he doesn’t know which projects he’s using to scare people into voting for him.

I also asked about downtown density and about how he would go about trying to encourage bright 20-30 somethings to stay in Ann Arbor, all of which he also ignored.

He did respond, sort of, kind of, to my question about how he would balance the rights of property owners and renters. His response:

“The City can direct developers to make energy efficient buildings and to make different styles of apts in buildings. There can be building with no parking spaces…there would be a market for them and they would sell for much less than the current market demands.

There is also a supply of older apts in town and with the cooperation of environmentally friendly owners and developers many could be improved and made more efficient in this time of rising energy costs. Making new and big is not the only answer. A housing mix is needed rentals can and should play a major role.”

Make of it what you will.

I personally think that while lowering energy consumption and promoting environmentally friendly buildings are good things, generally speaking, trying to address issues of residential density and downtown development through those means is something akin to painting the deck chairs on the Titanic with environmentally friendly paint.
posted by mitten on July 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
“Sabra never sought the POW! endorsement”

Mr. Cahill, it doesn’t say she sought anything, it says “POW candidate Sabra Briere …”

Your response is also odd; you are implying that there is no connection between pow and your wife. You also failed to point out that the article identifies you as a pow member. Once again David Cahillâ€™s candor clearly on display; what a CARD.

Weasels everywhere.
posted by abc on July 30th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Arborwiki’s page on POW

http://arborwiki.org/city/POW

notes:

“POW! endorsements appear to correlate highly with Friends of the Greenway membership”
posted by Edward Vielmetti on July 30th, 2007 at 9:53 am
There is also a supply of older apts in town and with the cooperation of environmentally friendly owners and developers many could be improved and made more efficient in this time of rising energy costs.

So this means he supports accessory dwellings?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on July 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
As these candidates seem intent on keeping things as much the same as possible, doesn’t that really define them as conservative?
posted by jcp2 on July 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I agree, jcp2. They shall henceforth be referred to as COW!
posted by FAA on July 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
How apt. I can smell the COW shit from here, and not just because I’ve relocated to East Lansing.
posted by Jeff Dean on July 30th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Where can I buy one of those chairs?
posted by Ypsidweller on July 30th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“There can be building with no parking spacesâ€¦there would be a market for them and they would sell for much less than the current market demands.”

Does this mean he also has a plan for a decent public transportation system? There wasn’t a peep about it on his “webpage”.

…or would that lower the quality of life for the neighborhood?
posted by Anonymous on July 31st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I’d like to see aaisoverrated turn out 50 voters to support their pro development position.

punks.
posted by mucho gusto on August 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pm
POW!’s coordinating committee is available on its web site. Notice who isn’t on it.

It is true that Anglin, Briere, and Bullington want to conserve what’s best about AA. So maybe calling them conservatives makes some sense.

But my name for these three candidates is the Rebel Alliance.
posted by David Cahill on August 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
“It is true that Anglin, Briere, and Bullington want to conserve whatâ€™s best about AA. So maybe calling them conservatives makes some sense.”

They ARE conservatives, Dave. So are you. That’s why I always say that Ann Arbor is a Republican town. You can call yourselves Democrats until you fall over, but locally, you are property-protecting Republicans. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’d just help a bit if they’d recognize this fact.
posted by todd on August 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
No, we’re property-protecting *liberal Democrats*. Protecting property is an issue which both parties can share.

Republicans are evil. We’re not.
posted by David Cahill on August 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
cahill, you should do standup comedy; you’re funny.
posted by nightshift on August 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 am
If you want to know the backstory about how Hieftje and pro development councilors pushed Ann Arbor to the forefront of hi rise concrete and steel development (to the detriment of it’s “Nature and Neighborhoods”) you need look no further than how they engineered the firing of Karen Hart, gutted the Planning Department, supported the blatantly pro development reorganization of Planning and Development Services and hired known sprawlers, city administrator Roger Fraser and Mark Lloyd, now the (pin)head of Planning and Development Services at city hall.

Hieftje needed $$ for a possible run for political office in Lansing so he hoodwinked a lot of voters to support the Greenbelt to curry favor and donations from township developers who might support his campaign. In hindsight we can see exactly how much the Greenbelt cost the citizens of Ann Arbor and its dubious benefits. Now Hieftje can’t buy a thrill in Lansing (and needs a political assignment from Granholm to move up) and the people of Ann Arbor are paying the price for unnecessary and unsustainable development.

The current council’s rubber stamping of Hieftje’s and Fraser’s makeover of City Hall resembles nothing less than what happened in Washington when Congress caved in to Bush over the Iraq war.

Throw the bums out!
posted by mucho gusto on August 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 am
Todd, you label without defining what makes a “Republican” (to you). “Conservation”, “conservative”, and “Republican” (politically speaking) all have different shades of gray, and you know “Republican” is an insult in an entirely Democratic party city government.

It seems perhaps you and other downtown merchants have somehow been seduced by promises made by developers who have short-term interests, while the communities you serve and live in merely want a voice on a City Council that currently ignores its constituents and avoids public debate. Especially as a business with a long-term interest in downtown (I can only guess at the investment it took to open your impressive operation) I would expect you to be at least dubious of development schemes that require planning commission overrides (anberay/zaragon sp?), and 30 year tax giveaways (lowertown/broadway village) and others that reek of short-sightedness.

I’m especially curious as to why you oppose a greenway project that would put your business on the future (Ann Arbor) equivalent of central park east. I don’t necessarily support the current “official” plans for a greenway either, but in principal how would a greenway hurt your business? Is there any greenway you could imagine that would benefit downtown in your eyes?

Do not make the error (and thus make false enemies) of assuming that those who oppose the current development plans (or some of them) for downtown oppose ANY or ALL development of downtown. I support downtown development, but am extremely disappointed with most (not all) of what has been approved, and am certainly disgusted by the conduct of city council, whether they’re talking about development or opposing the war in Iraq.

There are so many different issues to be confused about (that all intersect), and we stand to learn from understanding the motivations of politicians. Whether or not mucho gusto’s comments are true, it never hurts to question, and there’s no reason to avoid debate and discussion if you have nothing to hide.
posted by citycouncilisoverrated on August 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
You must be new. If you search through the discussions of development over the past 5 years here at AAIO, and over at Arbor Update, you will get all the answers you seek.

To sum up, though:

1. We have not been “seduced” by developers promises. Riddle me this. Ann Arbor makes 100 “Best Cities for…..” lists every year. Greatest city in the whole wide world, and all that. In addition, UMich has added 2,000 students, staff, and faculty to their tally in the last five years.

And yet the population of Ann Arbor has GONE DOWN in the last five years. And this is before Pfizer left. How is this even remotely possible????? No one wants to live here? Is that the argument? Where’d the 2,000 extra UMich people go?

Fees have gone way up. People are talking about more taxes, and more millages. This is KILLING small business in this town. We need more people in city center to support the higher rents and fees….otherwise the sales don’t justify the expenses….which is why you’re seeing local businesses getting replaced by chains. Bar Louie is a case in point.

2. The overrides that you speak of are because we don’t have updated zoning or Master Plans. Fix the plans and get the citizen input UPSTREAM in the process. Ann Arborites have grown to believe that all cities in the world get citizen and council approval for every single new building that is built. This is patently false, and its the primary reason that we’re getting crappy projects with endless delays. Craft a Master Plan with citizen input, and STICK TO IT. No more interference with individual projects.

3. The Greenway is going to make Ann Arbor like Central Park East???? Let me disabuse you of this notion. The “Greenway” isn’t going to be green at all. If they ever get to do it, it will be a multi-million dollar three foot wide brown bike path that runs next to an ACTIVE RAILROAD. What a great place to walk your dog, or take your kids for stroll, right?

Cleanup alone will cost millions, and they haven’t even inspected the soil for the entire proposed site.

The expense of this non-Green completely dangerous bike path will make Ann Arbor even less affordable than it is now. The idea that Ann Arbor is short on greenspace is laughable. But EVEN IF you think that we need more parks, notice that the Pro-Greenway crowd isn’t asking for the city to put parks in the poorer areas of Ann Arbor. You’ll also notice that those who are pushing so hard for the Greenway not only live right next to the proposed site, they are also demanding that it be installed NOW. Selfishness of the highest order.

I mean, come on, don’t you think that it’s a tad odd that the proposed Greenway never went through a site selection process???? Now why do you suppose this is?? You really think that there in no chance that there’s a better place for parks/greenpaths than right next to an active railroad in a floodway&plain (limits what can be built) that crosses how many active streets? Come on. These people have no shame. This is specifically the kind of crap that a self-serving Bush Republican would pull. Think “bridge to nowhere”.

It is possible that we could find a better site, but no one bothered to look. It’s impossible to not figure out why this is. Sad, really. But it will make Ann Arbor an even more expensive place to live, and this same crowd that is pulling for the Greenway is doing everything that they can to keep people from moving downtown. This is the main reason that I am 100% against the Greenway. All these amenities are swell if you’re wealthy enough to enjoy them. If I wanted to live this way, I’d move my distillery to Aspen.

…..but I suggest you have a look at Arbor Update and AAIO, and I spell all this out many, many times.

Oh, and you’ll also find that I am indeed on the fence w/ the Broadway project.

And one more word about the Republican insult. Look no further than our “affordable housing” MO to see Ann Arbor’s liberal patina melt down to a Republican underbelly…..I don’t know how Ann Arbor Democrats can support this ‘plan’ with a straight face.
posted by todd on August 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
As I also have written before, I was there with the theoreticians of the original Greenway idea, some years ago. And what they had (still had) in mind is “opening up” the Allen Creek valley by wiping out the railroad embankment and leveling at least hundreds of buildings in one of Ann Arbor’s more interesting neighborhoods. The vision of the “pristine” no-railroad, no-buildings “full Greenway” is the reason advocates persist in the face of practical objections like the ones Todd just mentioned.

Downtown Ann Arbor is successful in part because it managed to avoid “urban renewal”, the buy-up and demolition of vast swatches of urban fabric. Greenway advocates reject this lesson. They want to to open up a huge distance of vacant land between downtown and the Old West Side.

Me, I like the railroad, and the nice boundary it creates, a gateway to the west side. I like the funky establishments (Fleetwood, Blind Pig, Cavern Club, Big City Bakery, and many others) and small houses that stand directly in the path of the “full” Greenway.

Unlike Todd, I would really enjoy a small path that runs between an active railroad and gritty old brick industrial buildings. The view would be fascinating, revealing a side of Ann Arbor few get to see. But a mere path is not the Greenway vision at all.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on August 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“Unlike Todd, I would really enjoy a small path that runs between an active railroad and gritty old brick industrial buildings. The view would be fascinating, revealing a side of Ann Arbor few get to see. But a mere path is not the Greenway vision at all.”

Well, there’s liability issues there. The minute you get the railroad involved, you’re going to wind up with big fences on either side of the tracks. And I don’t know if that’s possible in a floodway….it traps debris. Putting people, kids, and dogs right next to an active railroad isn’t a very realistic idea given today’s legal climate. Just my opinion.

But yeah, a path would be nice…..but that’s not at all what the Greenway advocates are talking about. As you plainly stated.
posted by todd on August 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Todd - I am new to AAIO, yes. In response to your points (same numbers)

1. Agreed (as it is fact) that population decreasing is a problem, and I am also afraid of the Pfizer impact. Also agreed that taxes, fees, and millages (millages = voters doing city council’s job) are significant contributors to high property taxes, which not only hurt homeowners but also renters and business who get that cost passed to them as well. Also agreed that we need more people in the city center to support the city, especially local business, and I especially agree that CHAINS SUCK.

2. ALSO agreed that we need updated zoning/Master Plans, and that we need citizen input, and UPSTREAM (before project submission, correct?) at that. Like, “what do we think the downtown boundaries should be?” “who/what do we want downtown to cater to?” “where do we see Ann Arbor in 20 years?” but I mean seriously. Not just as decoy issues for politicians to spout 21st-century crap. I mean commercial vs. nightlife vs. residential vs. industrial, what should be there - in other words a REAL ZONING CONVERSATION.

So, more agreement, and perhaps you might agree that it is the unresolved, never seriously discussed conflict over “what downtown should be” that is perhaps at the root of much of this debate, whichever side one is on.

Note that we have a lot to agree about thus far.

As an additional note, I also agree that if we don’t set clear zoning/planning guidelines, every project becomes a pain in the ass for everyone. I also agree that we shouldn’t NEED (and it burdens residents as well as businesses and developers) to approve each individual building that is built. I also see you did acknowledge that “we’re getting crappy projects with endless delays.” Now, I really agree with that.

So, before getting to the Greenway, I think we have a lot of common ground as far as the causes and premises of these problems. I think our main philosophical rift (please confirm/deny) is that:

While I am skeptical of city council and developer interests for lack of good city planning (agreed zoning problems), lack of fiscal responsibility (agreed tax/fee/cost & repeated millage problems), and approval of crappy projects,

You are skeptical of residents (as I am but more so) because you’re worried that they will oppose any change in zoning/planning guidelines from fear of tall buildings (etc.), they are only interested in protecting their own neighborhoods/property values, and for other reasons just opposed to anything changing.

So, to address the increased taxes/fees issue, as long as the DDA structure does not change, they will continue to receive any increase in taxable value for downtown property (since 1994 values?). This puts any additional tax revenue in their hands, NOT city council’s, so the city will not gain at all from the new property taxes. What views do you have of the DDA? How have they helped Ann Arbor? Are you happy with their progress or procedures?

Even without changing the DDA income it still puts more people downtown (recycling dollars), but NOT affordably. None of the buildings being built have what any post UM grads ( re: “Whereâ€™d the 2,000 extra UMich people go?”), singles or couples earning under $50k (or let’s face it, anyone under 30 in Michigan) would call “affordable” units in them. I don’t see how the developers you defend are advancing affordable housing, much less how the “anti-developers” (which is NOT true in all cases) are against affordable housing. If you have time, please explain (or direct me to previous posts).

Either way, I’m glad to hear you’re skeptical about Broadway/lowertown, because whether or not one supports development, if it’s such a good idea (and we need more tax revenue to lower taxes & fees) giving developers the next 30 years of the new revenues created is self-defeating. That’s taxpayer money (mine AND yours, whether rent or prop. taxes) going to developers and we don’t see returns for 30 years. Will you be in Aspen then? It’s especially a shame there (lowertown), because that could be a sweet area of town if one did it right.

I will address greenway later (which has been turned into many different things since inception, again not in total disagreement with you), but quickly - “bridge to nowhere” = taxpayer money funding projects benefitting private businesses brokered by politicians…. hmmm…. who are the republicans now?
posted by citycouncilisoverrated on August 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Much to the chagrin of many people I know, I think the city should sell some parkland, like Huron Hills golf course.

I’m also not convinced a so called “full scale” Greenway is such a good idea, but a connecting path from Stadium and Packard to the Huron and a downtown open public space along that path at First and William is a great idea.

Also, to further depart from many of my OWS friends, I am in favor of more residential density, particularly “granny flats” and 3-4 story brick residential buildings similar to the Argus Buildings and Liberty Lofts in the OWS. They should be located on property adjacent, but not in the Allen Creek floodplain, like 415 W Washington and 721 N Main, the former city garage.

I feel that a public greenspace at 1st and William with some development (not in the floodplain!) at 415 W Washington and 721 N Main IS the compromise solution to the Allen Creek conundrum.

I also think that declaring the Bluffs along N Main, a park was a poor decision. It’s poorly sited, inaccessible and not much of a “natural” area. It would have been a great location for low rise residential tucked along the hillside and a pleasant gateway coming into town rather than the dumpy old places that are there now. The folks who blocked the Avery project have shot all their bullets and they shouldn’t be surprised when something really bad gets shoved down their throats because they blocked the Bluffs and Avery and took nothing instead.

I was also against the decision to turn Dickens Woods into another park. It’s scrublands located in a neighborhood of suburban homes with nice yards, not far from the “back 40″ of Pioneer High and other public parks.

I honestly think that the Parks Advisory Commission is running amuck and has been unduly influenced by the Sierra Club and the Greenway advocates. That’s not to say that the PAC, Sierra and the Greenway advocates are not needed to continue to repulse the dark forces of unnecessary and unsustainable development at work in city hall in the guise of a pro development council. We need watchdogs and other voices, but we also need balance and sustainable development.

The public is now suspicious of (and rightly so) the mayor, council and Roger Fraser playing the shell game with parks funding, water rate increases, emerald ash borer vote, police scare tactics coupled to the park ranger issue. The city administration and this council has essentially poisoned the well when it comes to trust and doing what’s right for the entire city. This lack of trust makes it extremely difficult for all sides to honesty debate the issues and find solutions.

Now, Todd and a lot of folks here at AAIO can only think NIMBY when the OWS enters their conversation, but there have been a whole heck of a lot of other politically motivated bad planning and development decisions made by this council and I hear little of their whining when it comes to those.

To citycouncilisoverrated; As far as telling the truth about how the pro development crowd came to A2 in the last 8-10 years. let’s just say that I was there and saw it happen. It’s actually a matter of public record and the wacko conspiracy theory I presented is very plausible and probably true.
posted by mucho gusto on August 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“Now, Todd and a lot of folks here at AAIO can only think NIMBY when the OWS enters their conversation, but there have been a whole heck of a lot of other politically motivated bad planning and development decisions made by this council and I hear little of their whining when it comes to those.”

Then you are looking in the wrong place, Mucho. Take a gander at Arbor Update. I have criticized them for poor planning and development decisions of late. They need to get it in gear and finish the zoning revisions and Master Planning, since they obviously cannot stop construction while they get these documents together.

And it’s been a while, so your probably don’t remember, but you and I are 100% on the same page re: gutting the Planning Department. I still don’t understand why they did that.
posted by todd on August 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Here’s why and how.

The Planning Department was headed by a very capable administrator who served under the auspices (hiring and firing) of the Planning Commission and not Mayor, Council or administrator. She encouraged teamwork and tried to keep politics out of planning.

Hieftje and pro development council removed the planning department head position from under the Planning Commission and made that a regular department head position. The city administration (council, mayor, administrator) etc) reduced input (we don’t want to hear from you professionals) from an excellent staff, worked on stacking the Planning Commission with yes people, hired Mark Lloyd, someone who has no clue about what makes A2 unique, thinks Wal-Mart is great lives in Green Oak twp, hates historic districts and is a replicant of the manager/exec on the sitcom “The Office”.

The citywide reorganization resulted in the Planning and Development Services unit,( led by clueless Jayne Miller) a bureaucratic mess tilted towards big $$ developers and against local folks, developers and contractors alike. The city reorganization and “process mapping” of the development process was lead by Kerry Laycock, who made many, many, many taxpayers $$$ consulting, when indeed he was the hatchet man hired by the administrator and council. Laycock also had a hand in wrecking similar departments and WashCo. Smooth operator he is.

There are many more details, but the latest upcoming waste of the taxpayers $$ is a $500,000 software fiasco waiting to happen.
posted by mucho gusto on August 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 am
More total BS. Mucho you sound very much like a disgruntled former or current) city employee with a big axe to grind. Back in the late 90’s many in the city felt Hart was also “pro development.” As I recall the real reason she was moved along was that she could not control the costs in her department. How soon we all forget… cities in Michigan are all hurting as the state funding continues go shrink.
posted by Ted Huey on August 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 am
Oh, mucho, are you talking about the $500,000 for software for tracking developments? I guess you don’t watch the meetings. The funding comes from a lawsuit brought by the Homebuilders Assoc. a few years ago basically over how hard the city was on developers. The city lost but in the settlement, they worked it out so the money did not go to the homebuilders but could be spent on “improvements” to the planning and building process. So, this is money that cannot be spent on anything else. Big fiasco.
posted by Ted Huey on August 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Since this is still the POW! article, here is something about Leigh Greden from the POW! website.

*Leigh Greden: A Pattern of Conflict of Interest, Influence-Peddling, Misappropriation of Funds and Campaign Finance Law Violation*

By Tom Wieder

Ann Arborites are accustomed to spirited and hard-fought politics worthy of a much larger city. What we seldom see are examples of corruption or serious questions about the personal integrity of our candidates and local officials. Third Ward Councilman Leigh Greden, who is seeking re-election this August, is, unfortunately, an exception to that tradition. He has engaged in a pattern of improper conduct that disqualifies him from continuing to hold public office.

*Broadway Village: Conflict of Interest, Influence Peddling and Questionable Campaign Contributions*

The Broadway Village project being developed in the â€œLowertownâ€ area of Ann Arbor is one of the largest private developments ever undertaken in the city. It needs numerous approvals from the Ann Arbor City Council. The developer of Broadway Village, Strathmore Development Co., is represented by Miller Canfield, the large corporate law firm for which Greden works.

Given this fact, Greden should have nothing whatsoever to do with the Strathmore project. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. In addition, he has taken a large amount of campaign contributions from individuals with an interest in Broadway Village.

Gredenâ€™s work at Miller Canfield â€“ representing management in employment matters â€“ has nothing to do with real estate development. Despite this, early in 2006, Greden called Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner Janis Bobrin, asking to set up a meeting for, in his words, â€œhis client,â€ Strathmore, to discuss flood-plain issues regarding the project.

The meeting was held and included Greden, two representatives of Strathmore, Commissioner Bobrin, Bobrinâ€™s deputy and two City of Ann Arbor employees, who are ultimately accountable to Greden and fellow councilmembers. Though Gredenâ€™s client received no special treatment, Gredenâ€™s mere presence at such a meeting represents a conflict of interest.

Since Gredenâ€™s legal work has nothing to do with this kind of issue, the only reasonable conclusion is that Greden, his client, and/or his bosses at Miller Canfield sought to exploit his status and contacts as a public official.

When first asked about this meeting by a reporter from The Ann Arbor News, Greden denied that he asked for it to be held. When it became apparent that his story would be contradicted, he told a second reporter that he had, indeed, asked for the meeting to be set up at the request of â€œhis client.â€

Publicly, Greden has acknowledged the obvious conflict of interest and tried to appear as if he were avoiding it. When a $40 million bond issue came before Council regarding the Strathmore project on June 5, 2006, he abstained from voting. He didnâ€™t mention that he already had worked on behalf of the developer.

Greden received a large amount of campaign contributions for his unsuccessful 2006 State Representative campaign from a dozen people with direct financial interests in the Broadway Village project.

Gredenâ€™s earliest contributions included the maximum allowed by state law from the original promoter of Broadway Village, developer Peter Allen and his wife, and from an architect working on the project, Connie Dimond. McKinley Associates, the large landlord and developer, is the leasing agent for Broadway Village. Greden received significant contributions from three members of its Board of Directors.

The most interesting of these contributions is the one from Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley. According to public records, Berriz has given over $20,000 in recent years to a number of state and federal Republican candidates and committees, including the maximum to George W. Bush, and â€œnot a dimeâ€ to any Democratic candidate running for a state or national level position until Greden.

Miller Canfield hosted a Lansing fundraiser for Greden on June 27, 2006. Other than several Miller Canfield attorneys, the only contributors were six individuals associated with developer Strathmore â€“ three principals of the company, two wives of principals and one of its staff attorneys, none of whom lives anywhere near Ann Arbor. Each gave $100, the maximum amount that can be given without listing the contributorâ€™s employer, so none of these contributors was identified in Gredenâ€™s finance reports as being associated with Strathmore.

Greden also received $3,000 from Miller Canfieldâ€™s Political Action Committee.

*Misappropriation of Ann Arbor City Democratic Party Funds*

In the spring of 2005 Greden approached the Ann Arbor City Democratic Party Chair Susan Greenberg about the possibility of holding a fundraising event for the Party. The money was to go into a Political Action Committee (PAC) which the Party could use to support local candidates. In an email, Greden described what he had in mind:

â€œI envision doing exactly what we do for Labor Day picnic - nothing different. People write checks to the Party, and none of the money is ever given to candidates. Itâ€™s not a fundraiser for candidates. Instead the City Party spends the money on advertising during the election.”

The chair agreed and, just days later, emails were sent to Democrats on the City and County membership lists saying: â€œThe Ann Arbor Democratic Council Members, the Mayor and the Ann Arbor Democratic Party invite youâ€¦â€ and â€œCome to a fundraiser hosted by the Ann Arbor Democratic Party, the Mayor of Ann Arbor, and the Ann Arbor Democratic City CouncilMembers!â€ At Gredenâ€™s suggestion, a phone bank was set up to invite people to the event. The callers said: â€œHello! Iâ€™m calling from the Democratic Party here in Ann Arbor. â€¦The Ann Arbor Democratic Party is having a fundraiser and we are inviting all Democrats.â€

To receive the money, Greden registered an independent political committee with the Secretary of State called Ann Arbor Democrats Fund (AADF). Greden was listed as Treasurer at his home address. He also opened a bank account in the name of the AADF.

Approximately 70 people attended the event on May 20, 2005. Greden reported to the Secretary of State that the AADF received 68 contributions, totaling $2,558.76. Contributors included at least 16 people who were Democratic elected officials or Party officers.

None of the money collected, and none of the records of the AADF or its bank account, were turned over to Party Chair Greenberg, or any other representative of the City Party. No report was given to party officials regarding the results of the fundraiser.

There were particular circumstances that caused the Party chair not to be more aware of the circumstances surrounding the AADF. During the entire time that the fundraising event was under discussion, her husband was gravely ill. He died just days before the event, she did not attend it, and she did not think about the event again after his death.

Unknown to Party officials and to virtually all of the AADFâ€™s contributors, the AADF began to expend some of its funds. $250 went to the 2005 City Council primary campaign of Steve Rapundalo. Ironically, Rapunadaloâ€™s primary opponent, Eugene Kang, attended the May 20 event and contributed, while Rapundalo did not. $250 went to Rapundaloâ€™s 2005 general election campaign, $200 to Gredenâ€™s 2005 campaign for re-election to City Council, and $500 to Chris Easthopeâ€™s 2006 primary campaign for City Council.

The Ann Arbor City Partyâ€™s Bylaws require it to be neutral in primaries, so giving Party funds to primary candidates is not permitted. Greden claims that a â€œboardâ€ was set up to make the expenditure decisions. He says that it consisted of him, his State Representative campaign manager Margie Teall, his campaign Treasurer Leah Gunn and his Council colleague Chris Easthope.

During his 2006 primary campaign for State Representative, Greden claimed an endorsement from the Ann Arbor Democrats Fund. This sounded like an official entity of the Party and suggested that Greden had official Party support. Many, if not most, of the contributors to the AADF actually supported Gredenâ€™s opponent, Rebekah Warren.

Greenberg had never been informed of the AADFâ€™s activities or its claimed board membership. After learning of the history of the AADF and of the details of the money raised and spent, Greenberg wrote to Greden in August, 2006 asking him to pay to the Party the amount received by the AADF at the May, 2005 fundraiser.

It took two more letters and the scheduling of a resolution at a City Party meeting demanding repayment before Greden finally repaid the full amount and surrendered the records of the AADF to the City Party.

Greden told Greenberg that â€œthe funds raised at the fundraiser were not the property of the Party,â€ and that the funds were not intended for the Partyâ€™s use, contradicting everything he had said before the fundraiser. He gave no alternative theory regarding who the money belonged to or what its intended use was.

Greden said that he was raising money for the Party, used the Partyâ€™s name and resources to raise it and then denied that it was the Partyâ€™s. He used the money to support candidates of his own choosing, including himself, ignored Party neutrality rules and tried to make it look like he was officially endorsed by the Party. When exposed, he had to be pressured to pay the money back to the Party.

*Campaign Finance Law Violations*

In July 2006, just a few weeks before the State Representative primary, the AADF received $500 in contributions from Greden campaign Treasurer Leah Gunn and her own campaign fund. Gunn had previously donated the maximum allowed by state law to Gredenâ€™s campaign - $500. Less than three weeks later, on Primary Election Day, Gredenâ€™s campaign reported that it received $500 from the AADF. If the $500 from Gunn was received by the AADF with the understanding that the AADF would give those funds to Gredenâ€™s campaign, it would be a violation of Michigan campaign finance law, punishable by a fine up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail.

It was only after last summerâ€™s Democratic 53rd District State Representative primary election that Gredenâ€™s misappropriation of Ann Arbor City Democratic funds became apparent. It is now clear that his ethical problems exhibit a continuing pattern of improper conduct that disqualifies him from further support by Ann Arbor voters. Clearly the best choice for Third Ward voters on August 7 is his opponent, LuAnne Bullington.

Tom Wieder is an attorney and Ann Arbor City Democratic Party activist for over 35 years.
posted by David Cahill on August 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Ted, you administrative apologist! The Mayor and Fraser couldn’t have said it any better!

It’s all about the bottom line isn’t it? That’s a straw man argument that diverts attention away from the crisis. That’s saying that even though everything is going down the tubes, it’s ok, because we’re saving money and are better off than most MI cities! Please note how many more and how much top salaries have gone up and how many lawsuits the city has paid over the years. Please note how many more temp employees without benefits there are. And don’t give me that tripe about Roger Fraser being underpaid and able to get more $$ in the private sector. It that were so, why is he still hanging around? It couldn’t be because of his civic spirit or desire to help the city because he lives in the twp, doesn’t pay city taxes, got a housing allowance and gets his personal vehicle expenses paid for by the taxpayers? Say it ain’t so!

Money was stolen from the Building department for many years and put into other pet projects. Millions! Particularly from the Pfizer years. Virtually nothing was reinvested. The current software is underutilized and the company, BSA, offers free upgrades. Goodness knows what the TCO will be for the new stuff (at least a year away) and there isn’t any hardware to run it or a training budget! The $500,000 software doesn’t “talk” to the assessors software and Engineering uses different software. What’s up with that?

When the lawsuit was settled there was a rush job dog and pony show for the Homebuilders, four used terminals for the entire staff were put on their desks! Some weren’t even hooked up. That was it! There was no training and less office time to actually use the “computers”. Now many years later, this “software solution” is being touted as being able to doing everything except wash the dishes. Well, any solution is only as good as it’s implementation and with the clueless crew in city hall heading this up, it’s doomed to fail. The Peter Principle is alive and well at 100 N Fifth Avenue.

In accordance with State of MI law, revenues from permits, plan reviews, etc was to be reinvested in operations. The city administration was aware of this and did nothing except divert $$ from the dept, resulting in the Homebuilders lawsuit. The city administration delayed dealing with the lawsuit as long as possible in order to play their shell game with the money. To this day, there has been NO reinvestment in hardware or software (it was all hand me down used equipment and available software) and most of the clerical positions are now staffed by low cost part timers (no benefits, temp help with no institutional knowledge). Staff has been dumbed down to better serve you. I dare you to ask any local contractor if their experience is any better after the re-org because that’s not what I’m hearing!

The way I see it, the lawsuit was a bow shot to the city to get inspectors to loosen up and less about fixing what was broken. There were several “feel good” meeting with the Homebuilders after the lawsuit, but nothing relevant or positve came from them. Essentially it was so the newly hired Mark Lloyd could tell them that he was “buttoning it down” (his favorite management expression). The Homebuilder have made nary a peep since they won the case and the city continues to dawdle. I would venture to say that much of the diverted cash was spent on the Planning and Development re-org and into Kerry Laycock’s pockets for consulting. I would also venture that some of it went to other departments that were loosely related to the P&D re-org.

When you claim that it was about controlling costs, do you have any facts regarding how much more or less costs in the Planning Department are now when compared to what they were 5 years ago?

The primary costs of the planning department was for salaries, the director, professional and clerical staff. There were no costs, to speak of, to control, all of the labor costs were known factors and budgeted. So don’t give me that crap about containing costs in the Planning department. Karen Hart’s firing and the re-org was pure politics to pave the way for big $$ developers. Firing someone for being unable to contain costs is a typical bureaucratic excuse when nothing else fits.

You’re swallowing their story hook, line and sinker! You’re smoking crack if you actually believe what they tell you and trust how the city handles the taxpayers $$. The emerald ash borer millage, the recent parks millage and the 2 million swap of one parks ranger for some police officers are prime examples.

Get real, Ted and say hi to your brothers Louie and Dewey.
posted by mucho gusto on August 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Ted, you’re knowledge of the Homebuilders lawsuit is woefully lacking. The city was in violation of state law for diverting money that the law required to be reinvested in departmental operations. Details above if you can read them without puking.

Now, I don’t disagree with you about the real reason why they filed the suit (overzealous inspectors), but they had also won similar suits in Scio TWP and Washco IIRC. Scio made a financial settlement, but the city wouldn’t (or couldn’t because they already spent it elsewhere) give up the money and instead kissed ass and lied to them to make the problem go away.

You’re really not a very credible guy.

I was there, saw it happen and have intimate knowledge of how this all went down.
posted by mucho gusto on August 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
So, I guess I was right mucho, you are a disgruntled employee with a huge axe to grind, were you “moved on” too? You make so many claims without facts. About the Greenbelt, about planning, about peoples motivations. About development, which is not really much of an issue. There is what, one building actually going up in downtown? On Ashley, right across from an exiting building of the same height.

But about development, why would anyone on council “pave the way for big $$$ developers?”

On the ash borer millage: What is the sin in asking the taxpayers if they want to pay more for 3 years to help with the costs of removing the trees? The voters said no, we don’t to do that and the city moved on. Whats the big deal. Of course if had passed the city would have had the money to replant the trees. But still, they asked a question and the voters said no. No big deal.

I disagree with the spin that anti-city people are trying to put on the parks millage. From watching the meetings it was very clear the CFO treated the parks millage the same way he always did. Council made the right decision.

The parks ranger? He’s gone and now the police do what they should have been doing, enhanced police services in parks. There is no $2 million involved. Are you just spreading lies again?
posted by ted huey on August 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Ted, you ignorant slut.

Hieftje was elected to council on Sierra Club support and Doug Cowherd’s “Nature and Neighborhoods” slogan. Where is that support now?

He was once in favor of tall buildings and made comments about how Chicago has tall building and maybe A2 should emulate that city. He has also made comments about how NYC is more “green” than Ann Arbor and could learn from those cities about being green and learning to love tall buildings. Now he derides tall buildings at A2D2 discussions.

Sprawler? City Council and hizzoner talk a good game but hire top officials who live in the sprawling townships like Fraser, Lloyd and last I heard Sue McCormick still commutes from Lansing?

Asking the planners I know, they all said that the Greenbelt would cause people not to move into the city, but to move further away. Ann Arbor was and is not infrastructurally prepared for increased density, so why would people want to live downtown? They won’t, so they’ll move to the townships! Ann Arbor is putting the cart before the horse in the case of urban development and a Greenbelt. The Greenbelt might have been a good thing for township residents (like you I suspect) but has been perceived as a drain on the city during these hard economic times. Wasn’t there a sudden increase in land speculation after the Greenbelt was approved? Who benefited from that? Hieftje’s real estate buddies and developers who might want to build within the city limits.

Hieftje is a flip flopper, he never makes a decision unless it’s politically expedient. Just because he talks a good green game does not make him an expert. Former state rep Chris Kolb has way more experience and knowledge of environmental issues than Hieftje. His possible appointment by Granholm reeks of nothing more than being a good soldier for toeing the Democratic party line.
posted by mucho gusto on August 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Wow, you do have some anger. You must have been one of the few people laid off at the city or is someone paying you?

In environmental circles the mayor is very highly regarded. Note he is always endorsed by the directors of the Ecology Center, the Michigan Environmental Council, the Director of the National Wildlife Fed., etc and now the director of Environment Michigan. He was working on the environment here before many even came to town. He was Chair over at Recycle A2 in the late 1980’s. Actually he is regarded as an expert. He was just in DC to speak to a large congressional caucus at a renewable energy conference. His environmental creds are not in question. The mayor is a native of A2 and has a long time record of activism. I don’t think he needed Mr. Cowherd for anything.

Density in the downtown of cities is a good thing environmentally, most folks accept that it saves land in the townships. Where have you been?

On taller buildings (what, 11 stories is tall?) the mayor has not changed his usually votes with Johnson, he came out very early on the front page against the Gallery on main, he voted against metro 202 and almost stopped it (that was politically expedient?) and was raked over the coals in the paper. As I remember he thinks a building should fit the surrounding area. In fact I wish he would support taller buildings as do many in this town.

The mayor was a residential realtor, not a developer, he helped people find and sell their homes and as I recall, gave up his license when he was elected mayor.

You still have not answered so many questions from above.
posted by ted huey on August 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
A little history can always be fun (cut and paste links):

Map of Allen Creek and nearby attractions
http://www.aadl.org/gallery/aastreets/site4/newmap.gif.html

Industry and Recreation on Allen Creek
http://www.aadl.org/gallery/aastreets/site4/wall_displays/w1/diving_300.jpg.html

Allen Creek with men on bridge, 1902
http://www.aadl.org/gallery/aastreets/site4/FRAME-4_flood_400.gif.html

Allen Creek Valley Shapes the Town
http://www.aadl.org/gallery/aastreets/site4/FRAME-4_banner_400.gif.html

We have had a 100 years of filling in the Allen Creek (and ponds), perhaps it is time to start the 100 year process of removing fill and buildings from the Allen Creek. A law prohibiting buildings within the floodway will take decades to see them disappear. Things don’t happen overnight, but it does take regulations to start the process.

Neighborhood and local stores is not a greenway issue, it is a zoning issue. They will disappear no matter what happens with respect to a greenway, as the zoning is the issue that is eliminating them from the neighborhoods.
posted by librarysource on August 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“A little history can always be fun (cut and paste links):”

I don’t understand what you are saying here at all. Are you saying that we should level any homes or businesses that have been built in Ann Arbor after 1902? So we can have a greenway?
posted by todd on August 4th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Over 100 years tens of thousands of residents and businesses will come and go from the area. The specific locations can vary. Would building in a caldera of a volcano be a good spot? Probably not. How about spanning a fault line? Nah. What about on top of a landfill? I think that was tried already. How about in a floodway? Sooner or later it is going to flood. Probably not a good choice for building, when other construction or renovation locations are available that have less risk. The idea is not to chase people out with pitchforks, but persuade people to invest money in better locations, and let time and zoning/planning change the area.

I would like to compare the greenway with bike lanes. Why aren’t people screaming mad that every street in all of Ann Arbor is going to be widened instantaneously for bike lanes- disrupting businesses, blocking sidewalks for relocation, eliminating the lawn areas and trees? Well, everyone knows those just pop up when there is a street project going on, and the location is actually PLANNED for a bike lane. So too, a green way would be PLANNED along the floodway. Only when house moves are done, excavating, or dilapidated buildings go (like the shack on N Main, or the abandoned house at Kingsley and 1st), would areas change to greenspace. [From what I hear, the State doesn’t allow residential construction in the floodway anyway.]

Excavations that widen and deepen the floodway area also reduce the width of the floodplain and floodway. So, while areas may turn green, there is the potential for new construction on the areas that were previously floodway/plain. Let’s do an example (note numbers used not actual-not going to do the research for it): Fingerle lumber has five buildings in the floodway and ten buildings in the floodplain. The floodplain is 150 feet wide and 1 foot deep [150 square foot water flow area]. If a swath 50 feet wide were converted to greenspace, and it had 30 feet of it dug down 5 feet [150 square foot water flow area] the floodway and floodplain would be shrunk and contained within the greenspace. This knocks out the five floodway buildings for the green space, but converts all the other areas to safe locations for remodel/redevelopment. A win-win (safe buildings [all removed from floodplain by shrinking of the flood width], residential allowed, some greenspace near downtown).

Take a look at Thunder Bay, Canada: http://www.geo.mtu.edu/great_lakes/ilsg/2000Meeting/citymap.gif
See the recreational trail systems along the creeks and rivers? Movicar Creek recreational trail is almost complete - there is a gap between Balsam and Shuniah Streets to finish up.

Here’s some stuff from Portland, OR: Nature in Neighborhoods
“The Metro Council and its staff have collaborated with the regionâ€™s citizens, businesses and governments to establish The Nature in Neighborhoods initiative to pursue common habitat protection goals:
â€¢ conserve and improve streamside, wetland and floodplain habitat and their
connections.
â€¢ restore degraded sites to compensate for adverse ecological effects of past
development and land-use practice.”
http://www.austin-chamber.org/TheChamber/AboutTheChamber/Portland06_Intercity/13GreenSpace.pdf

In planning it is necessary to look long term, not just what you see before your eyes right now, but what it could be (a constantly improving place to be, hopefully).
posted by librarysource on August 4th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
You do realize that this is the exact opposite of what the Greenway advocates are calling for?

The slogan for Sonia Schmerl was Greenway NOW! (emphasis theirs). They have no interest in long term planning. The Greenway that they want is not for their children. It is for them.
posted by todd on August 4th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I walked one stretch of what I think is “the greenway” today - Main St. to State St. going as close to the tracks as I could without trespassing.

The route is pretty pleasant - it takes you through the Fingerle lumberyard, along the edge of Elbel Field, and through the parking lots / baseball field construction in the athletic campus. The big detour on the NE side of the tracks is the football complex - once you hit that, you’re forced back to the street.
posted by Edward Vielmetti on August 5th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Ed — How far were you from the ties? I’d anticipate at least a 50′ ROW (from the center of the tracks) and i don’t think I ever walked along the path without thinking I was in the ROW (ie trespassing).
posted by Dale on August 5th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Hey aaio, some Mike and LuAnne fun you might appreciate. . .
posted by David Boyle on August 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
More proof the AA news sucks. I think we need to get rid of the editor, Ed whathisname. How about a coup?
posted by Just a homeowner on August 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Hello and Good Day. Richard Wickboldt here. August 7th is voting for the City Council in our ward. While it is a primary, this is the vote that counts since only one party has candidates running.

This race is very important! Ann Arbor is at a cross roads to the future. We have immense challenges before us with the state economy in a slump and now Ann Arbor is no longer an island of vibrant economic activity. This is evident with Pfizer leaving us. We are only beginning to feel the impact. Our real estate values are declining and some neighborhoods have seen 40 â€“ 50 % loss in value. Many local businesses in our Ward will see less economic activity. The city will see less tax receipts. Our city budget will be challenged!

We need city council members who can provide the over sight to the government, hold the City Administrator accountable, know how to spend tax dollars wisely, have a depth of knowledge so they can question the votes put to them. Most importantly experience in building and reading a budget that must provide us with basic city government services in public safety, infrastructure (transportation and water), public health and social services. Additionally knowledge in the operations of these types of services to insure the City Administrator is properly managing them.

We donâ€™t need city council members who have specific agendas, clear ties and endorsements from special interest groups who wish to spend our tax dollars for their dreams and social agenda, no knowledge of city government operations in providing services, who feel that the world will be saved by our city government and itâ€™s resolutions and our tax dollars.

We have candidates in our Ward 1 race who have very specific ties and endorsements by organizations who do not have our best interest in mind and no respect for the role of city government. These same candidates have no professional knowledge or experience in the basic and important services we expect from a city government. They have no experience, responsibility and involvement with a budget of tens of millions of dollars. They have no experience how to properly allocate and spend money in operations of services. There only experience is in political and social activism. City council is no place for political and social activism.

I have been asked to run for city council by many members of our community because they know I have the following experience we need to manage an effective city government:

Â· 23 years experience in public services and utilities,
Â· I have proven experience and track record as a steward of public tax dollar expenditures,
Â· 23 plus years in management and decision making within the public sector,
Â· Real world experience and track record of improving and championing the environment,
Â· 15 years experience in emergency management,
Â· No ties to any public or commercial interest group,
Â· Extensive project management in areas of master and strategic planning, construction, engineering, environmental, utilities services and regulatory compliance.
Neither of my opponents have any experience which will make them an effective city council member.

I urge you to vote August 7th because our future of effective government is in jeopardy. Recently it has been announced that the Mayor maybe leaving his office to be on the Michigan Public Service Commission. A present City Council Member will be the acting mayor and the council seat filled by appointment.

Finally I also urge you to pass this messagel onto your friends and neighbors and ask them to get out and vote tomorrow. Many of the primary voters who turn out are political activist who use the low turn out to get heir agenda and candidates on the council. By a larger turnout we can reverse this trend.

Richard Wickboldt â€“ Ward 1 City Council Candidate
posted by Richard Wickboldt on August 7th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Richard Wickboldt is overrated.
posted by John Dory on July 21st, 2008 at 6:03 pm

We Won’t Be Asking Tom Gantert for Driving Directions

45 Responses to “We Won’t Be Asking Tom Gantert for Driving Directions”

Leave a Reply