Way to Go Green
Metromode might not be completely up on the difference between greenways and greenbelts, but one thing’s clear — whatever they’re called, these areas offer beaucoup dollars to nearby property owners and a green-sounding cause to rally around and solicit donations for!
Only for altruistic and green reasons did McKinley support the millage that created this boondoggle. As a major property owner, they had no corporate interest whatsoever, I’m sure. My tax dollars at work: I’m paying thousands a year not to have my grass clippings picked up (while bupkusvilles like Dexter and Saline provide that service). At least here in A2 I get the honor of paying to repair the city’s sidewalk adjoining my house — it’s a contribution, really, to the “Ann Arbor Assistance Fund”, just like the line on the water bill. No, core services to city residents are much less important than buying a tract of land outside the city limits to which there is no public access whatsoever!
posted by Anonymous on August 14th, 2007 at 8:46 pmYes! Green barrier! My house is going to be worth megabucks now that we can surround ourselves with green, green, green. And I don’t have a sidewalk!
I love Ann Arbor. The rich get richer!
posted by Just a homeowner on August 15th, 2007 at 7:26 am“I’m paying thousands a year not to have my grass clippings picked up (while bupkusvilles like Dexter and Saline provide that service)….”
Dexter and Saline still pick up grass clippings because it’s still the 70’s in Dexter and Saline. You can still buy cans of beer there with pull tabs that come all the way off.
What is it with anal retentive geezers raking their grass clippings? For the love of christ, just run the mulch feature available on every lawnmower made in the last decade (even electric ones) and leave them on the lawn. EVERY study from MSU and any other reputable turf grass researchers says that not only does it do no harm, but it does a lot of good for lawn.
Not even my Dad rakes his grass clippings anymore. And from where he lives Dexter and Saline look all cutting edge and shit.
I’m not a big fan of social engineering by garbage truck decree but in this case, just get over it. Save your energy for the sidewalk repair battle. I think you’re wrong there too, but at least you’re only wrong in a policy sense–you’re not like cosmically wrong.
And if anyone want me to come over for an in-person lawnmowing tutorial, just let me know.
I also know a lot about hostas.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on August 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pmMy neighbor rakes his grass clippings into the street since the city won’t pick them up. And he waters the lawn daily, too. Fun times.
posted by Young(ish) OWSider on August 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pm1) The city doesn’t buy land without public access. It’s buying the development rights to the land. The people who own that land still own it and still pay taxes on it, just at a reduced rate.
2) The greenbelt millage goes specifically for that purpose (and parkland acq.) It can’t be spent on picking up grass, leaves or anything else. It was supported by a large majority of voters. Don’t like it? Complain to the people who voted it in.
3) Greenways and trail systems are good things in their on right. The fact that they are economically beneficial to some property owners can be seen as a bonus.
posted by John Q. on August 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pmThe best Greenway right now is the Huron. Everything else is kind of off-green brown.
posted by Ypsidweller on August 15th, 2007 at 9:16 pmI don’t think greenways and trails are inherently good. While they may have essentially good environmental features, those have to be evaluated in their larger context. It’s “why a greenway?” not “how awesome would a greenway be — kind of, or totally?”
posted by Dale on August 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pmGolly Dale, Doesn’t Murph write stuff for Metromode? They think Greenways are way cool, totally to the extreme!
The A2 Greenway will be located along the path of the historic Allen Creek and emphasizes the topography of downtown Ann Arbor and the pattern of the naturally occurring west side drainage system.
Beats the heck of the John Allen Memorial Parking Structure that the DDA proposed for 1st and William.
That site as an open public green space with a non-motorized transportation route connecting the Huron River all the way to the Stadium Blvd overpass and not building in the floodplain are the issues and the compromise position.
posted by mucho gusto on August 16th, 2007 at 6:39 pmYou’re for the Greenway, Mucho?
The guy who keeps telling us about the halcyon days of Ann Arbor? The guy who didn’t have two nickels to rub together when he first arrived here? The guy who just told another guy to go out and get some dirt under his nail (I actually liked that comment, even if it was wrong).
You’re actually for putting a multimillion dollar bikepath next to an active railroad?
Yeah, parks and Greenways are nicer than parking structures, but only if you’re rich enough to afford to live next to one, and only if you’re weasely enough to get an RPP put into your neighborhood so, shockingly, you no longer need that parking structure. Funny how that works. “Parking structure? We don’t need a parking structure. We’ve got an RPP, so everything’s fine.” Unfortunately, our City officials missed this neat little trick.
I mean come on, Mucho, you don’t view the Greenway as a perq for a gated community? Who’s going to have enough money to live downtown, after the property values go throught the roof (again), and the tax bill comes due for the construction and maintenance of a park that’s several miles long? Hell, the electrical bill for the lights on the path alone will run hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. And yet the Greenway supporters are griping about the cost for basic infrastructure. Things like water pipe maintenance and civil offices that aren’t on the verge of collapse.
Seriously. You’re for the Greenway? Say it ain’t so.
posted by todd on August 16th, 2007 at 8:31 pmI like Mucho Gusto. Probably I know him in person under a different name; at least, we have lots of friends in common. Like him, I was hit by a nightstick at an antiwar rally in 1972. I, too, slept in a DC church basement, wrote for an underground newspaper, marched in demonstrations and walked picket lines for the farmworkers, among many other things.
But I’m very dismayed to see MG buy into the “Greenway” mania for destruction. It baffles me why people who say they’re for preservation want to rip out hundreds of historic buildings on the west side of downtown.
Yeah, some of it is in what might technically be called a “flood plain”. Beware of definition creep. It’s a flood plain if there might be an inch of water above ground once every hundred years. Millions of Americans and many whole cities are at far greater risk of flooding than Ashley Street.
The fact that there is much flood risk at all along Allen Creek reflects inadequacies in the water runoff infrastructure. That can be addressed (and is being addressed) at far less cost than buying up and laying waste to hundreds of buildings.
As I keep saying, I’d love to be able to walk along the railroad and see all the funky, unselfconscious back-alley scenery from the river to Stadium Boulevard. But the “full Greenway” advocates want none of that. Their approach would be to rip out the railroad and everything along it, scrape off everything down to bare subsoil, and replace it with a treeless, closely cropped, chemically weeded lawn, hundreds of feet wide, as grim and banal and boring as can be.
Ann Arbor is a success compared to other Michigan cities, at least in part, because we escaped the devastation of “urban renewal”. I’m not happy that people old enough to remember how that went down have forgotten the lesson.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on August 16th, 2007 at 8:42 pmAugust 2 07; “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.”
“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.”
No change in my position, todd. Please check my post on Aug 2.
Larry, I should have said “floodway”. I’ve seen the maps, know the diff and misspoke. And I do not support ripping out hundreds of old buildings on the west side. Talk about “definition creep”?! In reality, the combination of Joe O’Neal’s grand vision and Peter Allen’s idea of deepening the daylighted Allen Creek, would result in less floodway and more buildable land and would require “ripping out” fewer buildings. I don’t completely agree with O’Neal’s vision or Allen’s plans, but a scaled melding of them.
Strangely enough, I agree with Hieftje that the Greenway advocates are too assertive in their goal and believe that if the Greenway was to be “full scale”, city residents would have to accept a lot of unnecessary and unsustainable development in return. I am in favor of a compromise that gives up some public property for development and in return gets what I wrote about in my post of Aug 2. In my view, that’s a fairly pragmatic position for all the flack I get on being part of the “preserve in amber” crowd. (GRRRRRRR)
For the record, I haven’t voted in favor of any $$ for parks, for any purpose, in more than 10 years because for many years they were slushfunds (not unlike the $$ from building permits resulting in the Homebuilders lawsuit) for politicians pets projects. The Parks maintenance millage, emerald ash borer $$, Greenbelt $$, Parks Ranger vs cops fiasco, are all, IMHO, Fraser inspired sleight of hand bookkeeping to make his bottom line look good before he moves on to another city to attempt to bust their unions or retire in Scio township without paying a dime in taxes to the city he serves.
I’ve ALWAYS been of the opinion that ANN Arbor must not become a Disney Main Street USA, not be homogenized to point of being a caricature of itself. I’ve ALWAYS thought that every town or city need to retain some of it’s gritty character and not become “boutiquey” of which A2 is in danger of becoming (if that process has not already begun) if it follows the path of unsustainable development and attempts to imitate other cites that some perceive to be cooler and better than ours. You know, “the grass is always greener” kind of thing.
I like the train whistle, the RR tracks and the grit still remaining along them. I liked hanging out with the Lansky boys on N Main. I spent a weekend in “Harvey’s Hotel” where the surface lot is now located at Main and Ann. I like walking behind Beakes Body Shop next to Pete Shefman’s spit of land parallel to the tracks. (Last I knew, Shefman owned half of that old shack next to the railroad overpass with Peter Allen owning the other, split down the middle north to south!). I spoke before the HDC, many years ago, to preserve the previous 50’s marquee at the Michigan theater because I thought the new “original” marquee was too “precious” and didn’t retain the historic character of the Michigan. It was one of the few things I ever agreed with Joe Tiboni about and we lost.
Now don’t get me wrong, I liked the good old days and strangely enough remember most of them. Some of us stayed and became part of this place and some moved on. Today is no different with Todd, Murph, Brandon, AAIO and Dale (except I really, really hope he moves after he graduates). I really resent this “preserve in amber” crap. It’s just not true about any of us old timers who really like and care for Ann Arbor. We’ve been around long enough to know better and you young’uns don’t give us enough credit for having 20/20 hindsight and the foresight to understand that change is inevitable. But change for the sake of change or for A2 to become something it is not and never should be should be avoided at all costs.
Todd? Your beer hall is one of the funky old buildings along the Allen Creek. It has that gritty feel and character about which Larry writes so eloquently. If the old A&L Auto Parts building was torn down and replaced with another high rise, I would consider that good reason for moving or at least getting good and commiserating drunk!
If people like Dale. Murph and their ilk get their way, don’t be surprised if A&L gets dozed along with the auto body shop and that old garage next to the tracks. When some big-buck developer dangles a pile $$ in someone’s face and buys a slew of variances from Council and the Planning Commission, that end of the block could easily become another concrete and steel monstrosity. After that Fingerle and the AARR tracks will be the next dominoes to fall.
posted by mucho gusto on August 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pmThe guy who just told another guy to go out and get some dirt under his nail
I’m pretty sure he meant it in reference to doing organic gardening.
posted by Constantine on August 17th, 2007 at 12:56 amHey, that creeps me out! Stop it!!
posted by mucho gusto (marking his territory) on August 17th, 2007 at 8:56 amFun Facts on Flooding:
One inch of water against a house with a basement = 8 feet 1 inch of water in the house.
8 feet 1 inch of water in the house = 8 feet 1 inch of sanitary sewer backup water in the house.
Homes not built to flood standards typically have electrical in the basement = electrical fires. It is more common in this area for a home to burn down in a flood than be knocked off its foundation due to fast moving flood water.
posted by fire from water on August 17th, 2007 at 10:20 amPeople a) water the lawn every day and b) rake up grass clippings?!?!
Even though I’m all flower- and planty-headed, I never water my lawn, er, weeds (but I do keep them mowed, thankyouverymuch). However, I can understand the human urge to nurture growing things by watering. (I’ll save the rant about lawns.)
But I DON’T get why anyone would go through the extra effort required in raking grass clippings when, as parking dude pointed out, clippings enhance the lawn. They’re mostly water and dissolve as nitrogen–that same stuff many people pay to use and then exert energy to apply.
Crikey!
posted by Monica on August 17th, 2007 at 10:21 amFFW: So one inch of water on the ground might be a pretty serious inconvenience, once every hundred years. It might even be enough to persuade a person to relocate electrical boxes above ground, or not have a basement in the first place.
I remember the time in the 1970s in East Lansing when part of the Flowerpot neighborhood (so called due to floral street names) was inundated in a big flood. From the freeway, you could see how the water covered the ground around and between all the houses in that area. At least dozens of houses got their feet wet. Given the neighborhood, they were the homes of MSU professors and middle management state bureaucrats.
Not a single one of those houses, old or new, burned down. Nor were any torn down. Indeed, I don’t remember any big deal about cleaning up any East Lansing neighborhood after that epochal flood. And I don’t recall any notion that the Flowerpot should be plowed under to pre-emptively surrender to the once-a-century flood waters.
(Nearby Lansing was much harder hit by that same flood. I’m not as familiar with the specifics of what happened there, but I don’t remember hearing about any fires, and the neighborhoods flooded then are still occupied today.)
I haven’t spent my life in Ann Arbor, so I genuinely don’t know: how often have there been floods on Ashley or First? Has Liberty Street been blocked for days by flood waters? I’ve never heard of that happening, but maybe it did. How many times in the last hundred years?
A 10-year flood plain means there’s a 10% chance of that every year, so you better be ready. A 50-year flood plain would be a 2% chance, so you should think about it. A 100-year flood plain would mean a 1% chance. Still, better move those breaker boxes.
How much dislocation should an individual or a community go through to avoid the inconvenience of having (say) an inch of water on the ground once per century?
What if we knew the chance of inundation was once every 105 years? Or every 200 years? Should we clear out those flood plains too?
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on August 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pmIn the first entry, the writer notes “Only for altruistic and green reasons did McKinley support the millage that created this boondoggle. As a major property owner, they had no corporate interest whatsoever, I’m sure”
Of course, Mckinley, as the city’s largest landlord, would clearly support a reduction in available land for multifamily development since this would eliminate competition and increase the value of their existing holdings. Either that or they care about the environment. (I vote for the former)
posted by skeptic on August 18th, 2007 at 12:24 am“Of course, Mckinley, as the city’s largest landlord, would clearly support a reduction in available land for multifamily development since this would eliminate competition and increase the value of their existing holdings.”
The only problem with your theory is that there’s not one instance where a greenbelt acquisition has been used to acquire land slated for multifamily development. It also presumes that the development of apartments in Scio, Superior or Webster townships would have any impact on rental rates in the city.
posted by John Q. on August 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am“there’s not one instance where a greenbelt acquisition has been used to acquire land slated for multifamily development. It also presumes that the development of apartments in Scio, Superior or Webster townships would have any impact on rental rates in the city.”
Is John Q able to predict the future? It may not have happened to this day, but how does one know how land might be used in the future? Zoning can change, variances can be granted. Initiatives can be overturned. Money talks and McKinley (and others) has a goodly share of it. Don’t for a moment believe that they (or any monied supporters of the Greenbelt) weren’t cultivating their long term interests whether that was to remove available land from development in the townships or to make property within the city limits more valuable.
Where land and money are involved, I too, am (extremely) skeptical of motives. Let’s not be so gullible to believe that some voters or backers of the Greenbelt did so only for altruistic reasons. Or that they lacked a longer term avaricious view contrary to their short term vocal support. If any one of us believe that any corporate, political or even personal interest make decisions based only on what comes out of their mouth we’re whistling in the dark.
posted by mucho gusto (marking his territory) on August 18th, 2007 at 9:36 amJohn Q,
Of course there are no instances of acquisitions of land slated for multifamily development - the purchases pre-empt the opportunity to do so.
The national demographic trends forecast huge population increases. People will continue to spread out throughout America (and, yes Ann Arbor is in America). Where will these people live? Downtown? I doubt it. Due to cost issues (land, city added costs etc) the only residential will be luxury or high cost (e.g., Ashley terrace at over $300/sf). So, the metro area will fan out - into Scio,Superior, Webster and other townships.
The greenbelt will force residential further out. This will create value for the landlords in town since they can charge higher rents. Its not a coincidence that McKinley is a prime supporter of the Greenbelt. They are smart and have foresight. The greenbelt creates additional barriers to entry - which is a terrific business strategy for McKinley.
posted by skeptic on August 18th, 2007 at 10:26 amInterestingly enough, mucho gusto, I’d say we agree on at least 75% of what you have to say in your longest comment on this thread - perhaps it’s because that’s the only comment I can recall from you that devotes more space to content than to being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. (And the parts I don’t agree with you on are largely your strawman misrepresentations of me, nor do I quite understand your earlier assertion in this thread that because I spent a week guest blogging for metromode, and metromode says that greenways and greenbelts are a good thing, Dale is required to think that every greenway is a good greenway.)
I have on previous occasions stated that I’d support an Allen Creek Greenway - but that I think both the scope and the speed that the Friends imagine are completely unrealistic. I certainly don’t support growth for the sake of growth (the ideology of a cancer cell, as a wise man once said) - but rather, I oppose the fighting of growth for the sake of fighting growth.
I’ll also remind that I’ve spent the majority of my life in Washtenaw County, and don’t have any plans to “move on”, so I don’t quite understand how I’m some sort of carpetbagging transient with no “real” interest in Ann Arbor. (I suppose that if you think of Chelsea and Ypsi as somehow completely removed from and separate from Ann Arbor, you could say that I was an outsider to A2 and have now moved on, but that’d be a pretty unrealistic view of how this area works.)
But, hey, considering how willing you are to simplify my views, as well as those of AAiO, Dale, Brandon, and whomever else you want to horn into my cabal, you would probably consider me an ally at this point. After all, I own my home, co-chair my neighborhood association, and have a job in historic preservation, making me my own worst enemy under the blind and monolithic positions you ascribe to me.
posted by Murph on August 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am“Of course there are no instances of acquisitions of land slated for multifamily development - the purchases pre-empt the opportunity to do so.”
Again you’re wrong. The Master Plans of these communities would indicate where multifamily development is planned. In no instances has property that has been protected by PDR been zoned or planned for multifamily development. In fact, it’s largely been the opposite. The areas that the city has been acquiring development rights on has been the areas that the townships wanted to remain as agricultural or low-density residential development.
“The national demographic trends forecast huge population increases. ”
But not in SE Michigan. It’s been pretty well documented by SEMCOG that “growth” is SE Michigan is almost entirely in consumption of land, not from increases in population. We’re not seeing “huge population increases”, just huge increases in sprawl as the same number of people spread outwards.
The irony is that while you and Mucho Gusto are railing against the monied interests of the corporations supporting the greenbelt, your opposition is an endorsement to the monied interests of the majority of the development community. The attitude that all lands should be available to development, that communities should be accomodating sprawl, not controlling it and that we should allow sprawl to continue unabated is right from the talking points of the Homebuilders Association and the development community. Of course they oppose anything that doesn’t allow them unfettered access to cheap land to build McMansions and strip malls.
The flaw in the logic of greenbelt opponents is that they predict a future caused by the impact of the greenbelt when the future they predict already exists today. Even before the first greenbelt purchase took place, Ann Arbor already had higher than average home prices and rental rates. That’s existed even in an environment where in some surrounding communities, developers were given free reign to develop without much restriction (northwest Pittsfield Township and Ypsi Township are good examples). If the years of growth haven’t dampened home prices and rental rates, why should we believe that allowing more sprawling growth is the solution?
I’m not naive enough that some people funded the greenbelt campaign or cast their vote based on financial interests. There’s few political issues where that’s not the case. But just because a particular policy benefits McKinley or some other entity doesn’t mean that the policy should be rejected. There’s no perfect solutions and for whatever the negative impacts the greenbelt may create, the majority of voters in Ann Arbor (and now 3 surrounding townships) have decided that the alternative that you support is a path that they don’t want to follow.
posted by John Q. on August 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pmMurph,
Master plans change (even the in the city) so the fact that something is not zoned correctly may not be material in the future.
Also, you ignore the fact that ‘urban’ development in Ann Arbor is catered, due to various market and municpal causesm to the wealthy. Where will ‘real’ people live? Land will only get more expensive, in real terms, which will lead to an invcrease in the cost of housing as well. The supply of land is decreasing. Even if the demand remains the same, Ann Arbor will become even more expensive, again in real terms, in the future.
posted by skeptic on August 19th, 2007 at 9:31 amAs long as we’re talking about development, can I just say how HIDEOUSLY UGLY that new thing on Huron is? It looks like a Holiday Inn Express by an interstate in Indiana. Seriously, folks. What the heck?
posted by OWSider on August 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pmIts official, I can’t type. Here is a corrected version of the previous post.
Murph,
Master plans change (even the in the city) so the fact that something is not zoned correctly may not be material in the future.
Also, you ignore the fact that ‘urban’ development in Ann Arbor is catered, due to various market and municipal causes to the wealthy. Where will ‘real’ people live? Land will only get more expensive, in real terms, which will lead to an increase in the cost of housing as well. The supply of land is decreasing. Even if the demand remains the same, Ann Arbor will become even more expensive, again in real terms, in the future.
posted by skeptic on August 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThe supply of land is decreasing. Even if the demand remains the same, Ann Arbor will become even more expensive, again in real terms, in the future.
If only there were some way to create a larger number of living units on a plot of land of fixed size….
posted by Constantine on August 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pmFor all the talk of increasing residential density - only one is under construction.
There will be more Elks Lodge NIMBY rejections than 8 story “high rises” downtown.
posted by skeptic on August 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pmwhich one? the one on main & ashley? the one at the greek orthodox church? the one on beakes (i think) just west of main?
posted by peter honeyman on August 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pmaaargh, huron & ashley.
posted by peter honeyman on August 19th, 2007 at 7:21 pmAAiO:
If solid subdivision sprawl and malls out to Dexter and Chelsea reduces my monthly rent to the McKinley overlords by $50 over what I’d otherwise have to pay, I’m definitely all for it! When their “green” land use strategy only helps them take away more of my hard-earned green, it’s time put an end to it. Please sign me up for your new Washtenaw activism that adapts to our needs in a new century.
Hey Hey Ho Ho!
STOP McKinley!
The Green Ha$ Got to GO!
PAVE the County!
Asphalt NOW!
A brief word of caution, however, since veteran activists have learned that you should always be careful what you ask for. After transforming the landscape to concrete, asphalt, brick & cinder block, it’s a good bet that you’ll soon face vast new hordes of NIMBY homeowners from here to Cavanaugh Lake who cry out to extend the downtown greenway east-west from urban Waterloo to Willow Run. Before you know it, they’ll offer to spend the county into big debt while tearing up sections of perfectly good condo developments behind the spanking-new strip malls and industrial parks along Dexter-Chelsea Rd. Besides, it won’t be safe to ride your bike next to those greenway train tracks, either.
Sorry, Mucho, time moves on and we all change. Get with it.
posted by Yuppie International Party organizer on August 19th, 2007 at 7:32 pm“you ignore the fact that ‘urban’ development in Ann Arbor is catered, due to various market and municipal causes to the wealthy. Where will ‘real’ people live? Land will only get more expensive, in real terms, which will lead to an increase in the cost of housing as well. The supply of land is decreasing. Even if the demand remains the same, Ann Arbor will become even more expensive, again in real terms, in the future.”
Not sure if this was directed at Murph’s comments or my own but I’ll take a whack at it. The supply of land is always decreasing. It can be through development or through greenbelt purchases which take the land off the market. But either way, for any foreseeable future, that land is not going to be available for any additional development. Anti-greenbelters want us to believe that if we only allow unmitigated sprawl across the surrounding townships, that would bring down housing prices and rental rates in the city. If that’s the case, please point us to any municipality in the US where this has been practiced where this has been successful where the decrease in housing prices and rental rates in the core city wasn’t the result of population flight. One example, that’s not too much to ask, is it?
posted by John Q. on August 19th, 2007 at 11:05 pmThe Greenbelt is/was a political issue. IMHO, It’s the forces of unsustainable development and sprawl (usually the same groups can’t stand to see open land and dislike buildings under 10 stories) who wanted the greenbelt and sold it to the voters with the “Green” label and that it would “protect” A2 from the ugly sprawl that would surely sprout if it wasn’t passed. The forces were able convince politicians that it was in their interest to sell the greenbelt as slowing sprawl and solving the density issue ( tall buildings and less open space). It also built expectations of lower rents in the city because of the expected building boom. If ever there was a claim of NIMBY-ism, the greenbelt cast the entire city of Ann Arbor as saying that it doesn’t want sprawl in its backyard. Send it somewhere else!
JQ This anti greenbelter ((not because I’m against greenbelts, but against political manipulation) would prefer that our government be honest with us about the real intent of and potential consequences of their decisions (Naive, I know, but I prefer idealism). Every action undertaken by humans, is politically motivated. The issues of density and sprawl, development and green space are political issues of sustainability. Indeed, our culture leads the way, but, the entire planet and not just greedy baby boomers, have a sustainability problem. We can’t consume or build or economically grow our way out of them. We’re just spinning our wheels if we endlessly debate these issues without addressing the root problems (overpopulation, declining resources, global pollution, promoting interdependence, economic and social justice etc.) If we all don’t change the way we live on earth our talk will be meaningless and forgotten. If my generation was the only generation responsible for creating a polluted, overcrowded planet, I’d be in line with the rest of the lemmings.
Few political decisions are made with the best interests of the majority, but in the interests of the wealthy, powerful minority. It’s never been more true than in these times. We already know who the winners and losers are.
Yuppie, Don’t be sorry. Indeed “the times they are a changin” but “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now”. I know that “It’s not dark yet, but I’m gettin’ there”. (B Dylan)
As far as NIMBY attitude is concerned, I don’t think that city residents are any more or less NIMBY than township or rural residents. There are just more of them in a smaller space.
posted by mucho gusto on August 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pmMG - Guess you weren’t involved in the greenbelt efforts or your level of cynicism is pretty deep.
posted by John Q. on August 20th, 2007 at 10:28 pmAnyone who thought the greenbelt would stop sprawl by itself is beyond Naive…What the greenbelt was designed to do (and just might succeed at it) is simply save some properties for agricultural and or nature purposes. Will it make people who own property richer…most likely, then again even without the greenbelt the property values were going up. This gives the option to farmers who want to continue farming a chance to avoid having their farmland taxed like it’s a brand new subdivision as the surrounding area becomes more ugly sprawl.
posted by andy on August 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pm“Anyone who thought the greenbelt would stop sprawl by itself is beyond Naive”
I would say that the majority of people who worked to put the proposal together didn’t have such ideas. They’re all aware that it’s going to require a combination of efforts in reforming zoning, master plans, transportation, infrastructure, infill, density, etc. to even attempt to curb sprawl. But the greenbelt is part of that effort and I think if one was to survey the likelihood of preserving AG just 5 years ago as compared to today, I think you would have found few people who thought it was possible where as today you have the city and at least 5 townships actively making the effort.
posted by John Q. on August 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pmIt’s not the money, it’s the amount. Given that the city gov’t has finite resources within a set structure of tax revenues, the question becomes one of priorities. And, yeah, the Greenbelt is funded by its own special tax millage line, but at the end of the day, even the bleeding hearts/pockets of A2 will pucker up. It ain’t about being pro- or anti-sprawl. Sprawl is ugly and unappealing and probably not good for communities (Ford Road in Canton Twp will someday look like Westland near the mall). But if we agree that our priorities include something or another “green” and fostering good community (whatever that entails), is the best way to enact those priorities simply to spend? Could we do more good in Ann Arbor by planting trees or by buying farmland nearby? By making walking and cycling routes accessable or by clearcutting a swath of land through the middle of town? Might we even do best by not feeling obligated to spend just for the helluvit? Cool people might move here (or stay here) if the tax rate is affordable, which is accomplished by spending wisely. Detroit has low rents and property prices in part because of a millage rate that went out of control, and a municipal structure that acts like the city is twice the size that it really is (ok, and lots of other reasons, too). Did anyone catch the mayor’s comment about possible fiscal crisis for the city in a few years? The tax increases will be “fair” or not, “reasonable” or not, and “prudent” or not, but strap in, because it is about the amount!
posted by Anonymous on August 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pmWhen someone blames local tax policy for the exodus of population from Detroit, it demonstrates either ignorance or dishonesty.
Detroit’s cost of living (including housing costs and all taxes) is the lowest in the region, and has been for decades. Yet its population continues to decline steeply.
No doubt people have plenty of reasons to move from Detroit to the suburbs. But they are NOT doing so to increase their disposable income, because that has the opposite effect.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on August 21st, 2007 at 10:27 pm“It ain’t about being pro- or anti-sprawl.”
I completely disagree. You can argue about spending priorities until you’re blue in the face but if you don’t manage sprawl, your relegating the city to a slow and painful decline. Look at every core city surrounded by sprawl and you’ll find a center slowly rotting outward.
posted by John Q. on August 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 amSprawl is the issue. “…Every core city surrounded by sprawl and you’ll find a center slowly rotting outward” describes Detroit aptly. Never mind leaving Detroit, it becomes difficult to imagine moving downtown Detroit, whereas moving to downtown Ann Arbor has some appeal, cost per square foot notwithstanding. Out-migraton has been devistating for Detroit over 40 years, but the city itself has also been too slow to react. Detroit does tax and spend like a very large city, and it does not downsize government to meet the needs the city has now. Imagine Ann Arbor schools deciding whether to close Eberwhite or Burns Park elementary, while another elementary school gets built, I dunno, next to Lowe’s in Scio township. Sprawl is the problem. Attracting people to the city center to live and work and shop and hang out is the solution, and that includes making those choices attractive and affordable. Kestenbaum is right, people don’t leave Detroit to increase disposable income, but they do leave downtown Ann Arbor for Scio/Pittsfield/Lodi Townships for bigger McMansions with lower tax rates, and that is a huge problem.
posted by Young Westside on August 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 am“they do leave downtown Ann Arbor for Scio/Pittsfield/Lodi Townships for bigger McMansions with lower tax rates, and that is a huge problem”
The irony of course is that when they get to the Townships, they wonder why their streets don’t get plowed, there’s no parks, etc. and so begans the incremental growth in the size of Township government and the taxes to support it. Over time, as the townships grow, so do their tax rates. This exacerbates the sprawl as farmers who can no longer afford to pay “city” taxes sell their properties to developers for the next subdivision of McMansions. Compare the tax rates in Canton, Pittsfield or Ypsi Township today to the rates 30 years ago when the communities were much less developed. Eventually, those who want the “country atmosphere” and low taxes find that both have left town with the farmers and it’s off to the next rural township where the cycle starts over again.
posted by John Q. on August 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 am“You can argue about spending priorities until you’re blue in the face but if you don’t manage sprawl, your relegating the city to a slow and painful decline. Look at every core city surrounded by sprawl and you’ll find a center slowly rotting outward.”
I don’t think this is true in a lot of places. Just because sprawl exists doesn’t mean that it’s what everyone in a city prefers. I can think of several cities with lots of sprawl and thriving city centers coexisting; in these places lots of people are willing to trade off higher property tax rates and a higher crime rate for a shorter commute, a real neighborhood, beautiful old architecture, and culture. Though I would concede that lots of people may be fleeing the center of A2 for the ‘burbs because living at the heart of town isn’t, you know, THAT great.
posted by Nick on August 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 pmWhich cities are those?
posted by John Q. on August 22nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm“Which cities are those?”
OK, I’ll bite.
How about Los Angeles? Mrs. Structure-Dude grew up there and her family all live within the city, so we know the area pretty well. And for the sake of this argument I would accept the Ann Arbor definition of “thriving” as meaning that middle class people of all races live comfortably there and send their kids to the public schools.
And yeah, there are ghettos and crappy schools too, but there are plenty of parts of the city where there are excellent neighborhood (not just magnet) schools (and not just in the Valley).
If I didn’t mind spending three hours a day in my car, and they didn’t have such dreadful year-round summer, I’d have no trouble living within the city of Los Angeles.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on August 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm“As long as we’re talking about development, can I just say how HIDEOUSLY UGLY that new thing on Huron is? It looks like a Holiday Inn Express by an interstate in Indiana. Seriously, folks. What the heck?”
Agreed. The exterior detailing is cartoonish and the concrete panels are just plain ugly and extremely cheap looking. Plus along the foundation (i.e., next to the sidewalk at eye level) they’re using those crappy, fake stone, concrete blocks you can buy at Home Depot. It’s just, at best, extremely dull. Serves to remind me everytime I see it what an extraordinarily beautiful project that Ashley Mews is–especially in comparison.
We can only hope that once the rest of the skyscrapers are installed that this one homely one fades into the background. And if they’ll just put a Rite Aid on the ground floor all will be forgiven.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on August 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm“How about Los Angeles?”
I know LA is always pointed to as a city of sprawl but doesn’t it have a higher density that most other cities in the US save NYC?
posted by John Q. on August 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pmLA isn’t even in the top 20 cities in the US so far as population density is concerned.
posted by FAA on August 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pmI think that for various reasons that list is somewhat misleading. LA, for instance, has a ton of land that can’t be built upon, mainly because it’s too steep, and so was set aside as park land. Topanga State Park alone is 45 square km. Griffith Park is another 17. Driving around Los Angeles you see a lot of hills that just don’t have anything on them, or very little on them.
As a consequence, the areas that are developed are developed much more densely than anything in Michigan. It’s not unusual for a Target to be two stories and have a two or three level parking structure attached. Huge swaths of parking, like you’d see in front of any Meijer in Michigan are almost unheard of. And buildings like the Target referenced above, even in sprawly areas, are much more likely to be built up to the sidewalk. They cram a lot into the space they have. The Whole Foods parking lot on Washtenaw that everyone loves to whine about would be huge in most of the Los Angeles area. Even the Valley is more densely built upon than anything around here. In my experience you have to go to Orange County, or out to the inland empire to find wide-open sprawl like we have here.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on August 22nd, 2007 at 3:51 pmYou beat me to it, PSD. There’s plenty of sprawl around L.A. - Inland Empire, southern Orange County, northern LA County (Santa Clarita, Palmdale, etc.) - but a lot of really thriving areas near the city center - Silver Lake/Los Feliz, Pasadena, and West Hollywood, to name 3.
BTW, I live in LA now, and my commute is a 5-minute walk. And some of us like the year-round summer (we’re called hikers).
posted by Nick on August 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pmFAA, your list is rather misleading. Note that Guttenberg, NJ, the densest “city” on the list, has only 10,000 residents in 0.2 square miles. LA is 469 square miles.
Here’s a better table, of the 20 most populous cities, with areas and densities. Even this is misleading, though - a city like LA can’t be compared on a municipal-boundary purposes with even San Francisco - but I can’t quickly find a metro area comparison or a downtowns-only comparison.
posted by Murph on August 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 pm“And buildings like the Target referenced above, even in sprawly areas, are much more likely to be built up to the sidewalk.”
The LA city council just approved an end to mandatory setbacks.
Hey Nick, where you at? I’m in the Palms neighborhood (Overland and Venice represent!).
Feel free to send me an email if you feel like getting a drink joshsteich is the username, gmail.com is the domain name.
posted by js on August 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 pmRegardless of the leading or misleading of the good old 99% (+-98%) accurate at all times wikipedia info, LA is 469 square miles? Isn’t that kinda sprawly?
Not to discredit PSD’s or Nick’s experience or knowledge of LA, but those are the same stories I always hear - “it doesn’t looks so suburban”, or “believe it or not people here do have 5 minute commutes”. Then, you visit an LA friend and it seems like half your trip is spent in the passenger seat. They’re all “hey, I know this great little Mexican place” and you drive for an hour through what seems like an unending Grand Rapids just to get a soggy burrito and a weak drink.
posted by FAA on August 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm“Regardless of the leading or misleading of the good old 99% (+-98%) accurate at all times wikipedia info, LA is 469 square miles? Isn’t that kinda sprawly?”
Sure but its density far exceeds anything you’ll find in Michigan. Murph’s numbers from 1990 show Detroit being on par with LA but we know that the population fall-off in Detroit would make that comparison no longer valid. Plus, based on your Wikipedia link, LA is getting more dense (as compared to Detroit). Also, it appears that some of LA’s “suburbs” share its level of density where as here in Michigan, density falls off greatly as you move out from Detroit. Density by itself doesn’t preclude sprawl. But with density, you can support things like mass transit, light rail, etc. When you consider that 1/3 of the entire population of the state of Michigan lives within the LA city limits, it’s kind of hard to see that as comparable to the sprawl of Ann Arbor-Saline Road or Jackson Road.
posted by John Q. on August 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pmWell, FAA, it’s a very crowded city, so a lot of people have to fit into that square mileage. And as PSD pointed out, a lot of that land (the Santa Monica mts., Griffith Park, etc.) can’t be developed - to say nothing of many other parts of LA County, including the other mt. ranges, the Arroyo Seco, parts of Palos Verdes, etc.
JS, I’ll definitely drop you an email. I’m in Pasadena for the next few months, then moving over to the Silver Lake/Los Feliz area (for cheaper rent). But now that it’s 280 degrees every day over here I spend a lot of free time on the west side. Overland and Venice, huh? You’re right near Versailles on Venice, which you should try if you haven’t yet. And if you need a west-side bar you might like the Britannia next time you’re in Santa Monica.
posted by Nick on August 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 amYeah, yeah, yeah. Silver Lake/Echo Park is where all my friends live, but my girlfriend works at UCLA’s medical library and wants to live close enough to ride the bus. Plus, it’s only a 15 minute commute for me, which is nice.
And yeah, Versailles is right down the street (and I pass another on my way to work), but there’s not a lot there for vegetarians.
posted by js on August 23rd, 2007 at 6:37 pmJS: Hmm. Have you stopped into Urth Cafe in WeHo? Very vegetarian-friendly (though brace yourself for the wannabe-actor clientele).
Yeah, I loved the westside when I lived out here before, but work is in Pasadena and the commute would whip my ass if I moved back to SM. So eastside it’ll be. Which isn’t bad at all. I’m a big fan of the Echo after catching the Walkmen there a few months ago. And if you’re really nostalgic for German-beer-hall culture you should check out the Red Lion in Silver Lake.
posted by Nick on August 24th, 2007 at 3:01 amBah! I was at the Red Lion last night! It was OK, not great (I like ales more than lagers, but it was tasty— too bad they served everything in Pils glasses). But it was a bit of a hike. We’re thinking about going to the Fuck Yeah Fest out there this weekend though.
posted by js on August 24th, 2007 at 4:49 pmYeah, life’s tough. Everything in Pils glasses.
And Imagine, Versailles is right down the street!
All the way from Greenway to sprawl to living in LA and getting served ale and, horrors, lager in a Pils glass in some club I could give a rats ass about.
Have a fucking great time at the Fuck Yeah Fest. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
posted by mucho gusto on August 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pmPils is a lager, though not all lagers are pilsners. (And my mistake— they were actually Weizen glasses, since they were curved). Still, it’s a little silly to have all these different glasses around and not serve the beer in the right ones. I’m not even going to bother to point out that you’ve misread me again— I prefer ales, and great ales are thinner on the ground out here.
Or were you feeling piqued because your Grampa Simpson rants about the vagaries of townie life weren’t being given proper deference?
posted by js on August 24th, 2007 at 8:02 pmYours and Nicks conversation about LA hang outs, beer poured in the wrong glass and left coast hipster lingo perfectly demonstrates that LA sprawl extends all the way to Ann Arbor.
Who’d a thought that the Rockies wouldn’t be enough a Greenbelt to prevent sprawl?
posted by Anonymous on August 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm