ann arbor is overrated.

Next They’ll Be Selling the Public Polo Grounds

The latest cause celebre in liberal A2: saving the taxpayer-funded city golf courses from being sold to pay for frills like a police station. “Other recreational facilities lose money, so what?” says accountant Karen Sidney, although neither she nor the News provide any data as to how they compare to the golf courses either in maintenance or opportunity costs.

85 Responses to “Next They’ll Be Selling the Public Polo Grounds”

If they sell Leslie will they finally make Huron Parkway go all the way thru to M-14? If so, sell it!
posted by Thomas Cook on September 10th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Just add an exit to the Nixon/M-14 overpass.
posted by jcp2 on September 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Sell the golf courses and any other underused, money losing enterprises and politically acquired parkland like the Bluffs and Dickens Woods. Mr Fraser prefers Radrick Farms anyway.

BUT, Make sure the money doesn’t go to the new city hall, because that’s where it’s headed.

Face it, The City government has building envy and along with Roger Fraser, (who promised he would build a new city hall) local politicians would rather build an edifice to themselves rather than fixing the problems in city hall. No amount of development, public or private, will cure what ails city government. We’ll end up with a new building and the same old problems.

For many years, we were told that the golf courses were making money. Then we learned that the golf courses were actually losing money.

Who was in charge of operating the golf courses during those years when they were first making $$ then were found to be losing $$?

Jayne Miller, former bicycle coordinator, who after managing to lose money at the golf courses was promoted by Roger Fraser, to manage the service area that includes Parks and Planning and Development Services. She managed to get Ron Olson fired in the process. (He helped Ms Miller keep her job at the city)

The fish rots from the head down, folks.
posted by mucho gusto on September 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I don’t like golf either, and the only time I was on a city golf course I was riding my bike across it, but I don’t have any problem with the city running the courses if the residents use them and they don’t cost an outrageous amount to maintain.

Among the things that I have no use for but that the city spends money on golf is pretty trivial. Before I sold off the golf courses I’d sell the new dog park, the swimming pools, and every soccer field in town. I’d also sell part of Argo Park to someone who promised to build a bar on the shorleline with a big deck that went right out over the water. And they’d have to install vending machines that dispensed fish food so I could feed the carp. That would be an awesome public/private partnership.

And anyway, it’s not like they’d actually sell the golf courses. They’d just convert them to “open space” and make the park people continue to maintain them but with no revenue at all to offset the expense.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on September 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I have to admit almost complete ignorance of the internal complexities of A2’s economy, government, and infrastructure (as an example, those terms may all be synonymous here). However, I am trying to investigate things as best I can (ie. asking the city clerks, records/planning dept., etc. a lot of questions, most of which are answered with “you’re in a part of Ann Arbor that doesn’t yet put that information online, and we also don’t share that information back and forth between departments the way the rest of Ann Arbor does, so I’m not sure”), so please be patient with me.

If the city owns and operates these courses, does that mean the $40 per car parking for the football games goes to the city, or is that the city leasing the land to U of M for those days, and U of M’s sports department gets the cash?

As another poster seemed to say, I think if there’s land that’s losing money, we need to allow for the development of it. This goes especially for sprawling golf courses. I’m as in love with green and wooded spaces as anyone, but I think these golf courses, with their holes and traps 17 inches away from one of the busiest 4-lane roads in the city on 3 sides (not so great for those who appreciate golf) and their drooping and poorly-maintained 20 foot high ball nets (not good for drivers and bikers who appreciate calming sprawling green spaces) are not the best sanctuary for this precious intangible resource. Naturally, there are the caveats about how the money would be made (ie. let’s not sell it condition-free to any developer that has the highest bid and plans to build a Mall of America or a plastics rendering plant), but I think the city’s in enough trouble that we could spare one of our several highway-bounded golf courses to try and offset the alternative “raise everyone’s taxes, that’ll do it” solutions.

I see a lot of meetings discussing the millions of dollars being used to increase our “green belt” also. Why doesn’t the city, if they already own this land, end the golf course usage and consider this part of the acquisition of green belt space? Free hundreds of acres put towards their quota of acquisition, that seems like it’ll jump up the usefulness and success of that whole plan that, as I understand, we’re all putting a significant amount of money toward.

…And I agree with the comment about a new city hall. I have been on every floor, and I watch the CTN broadcasts of the (many) commision meetings, and I see no overcrowding, or any other issue that some different decorating wouldn’t cure. Nice welcoming technique, also, of requiring pay to the meters to conduct any business at City Hall (including paying them money). Very nice.
posted by BecomingJaded on September 10th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
BJ, if you’re really interested in serious discussion about political/cultural/social mechanics in Treetown and it’s environs, you should check out Arbor Update in the AAIO listed blogs.

AAIO is primarily devoted to snarky comments about the flavor of the week as chosen by AAIO. Then we beat the latest post is until it is unrecognizable. Without reaching meaningful consensus, we repeat the procedure with the next topic.

The city of A2 does not park cars for $$ on public property. The U of M and Pi Hi park cars & RV’s on their property and the UM golf course across from the stadium (not city property). (Does A2 Golf and Outing get a cut or park cars?)

I thought dry wit was dead until I read your post.
posted by mucho gusto on September 10th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Accounting is pretty fuzzy sometimes — allocate overhead differently and voila, things are profitable again. Beside, don’t most recreational facilities in Ann Arbor fail to cover costs?

I think a better reason for getting rid of golf courses is that while they are green in color, they are decidedly bad for the environment — growing grass requires pesticides, water use, fuel for mowing, etc..
posted by Anna on September 10th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Hey PSD

You really are one of my favorite posters around here. But…

You know I couldn’t just let you put the new dog park on the chopping block without responding. The idea of selling it is not such a hot one since it’s cited on an old landfilll that can’t be disturbed. The only reason dog owners are getting it at all is that nobody else wanted it. So there is really no opportunity cost. The sum total of construction and maintenance will be building a fence, mowing occasionally (which is already being done), and trash pickup. So the overhead is far lower than a golf course that requires constant irrigation and maintenance. Finally, dog park users are being asked to pay a significant fee to use the park in addition to the property taxes we are already paying. I realize that there are tee-times at the golf courses as well, but I think that given the low overhead of a dog park, it is probably not going to hemorrhage money in the same way.

I like the idea of having public golf courses available for people who can’t afford a country club and I don’t mind paying taxes to that end even though I don’t golf. I’m not convinced that our only two options should be golf course or police station. But if the golf course is truly so mismanaged then maybe it is reasonable to consider how to make it less of a liability.

As long as the conversation is about stopping money loss and not about using city parkland as a kind of real estate investment to be liquidated whenever there is a cash-flow problem, I’m open to ideas.
posted by arbordog on September 11th, 2007 at 8:04 am
“I like the idea of having public golf courses available for people who can’t afford a country club and I don’t mind paying taxes to that end even though I don’t golf.”

But there are a number of public courses in the area, so it’s not as if the only alternative to Huron and Leslie is a country club. And the two city golf courses aren’t unusually cheap to play, even for residents. What the city should do is put both courses out for bid to be operated by private companies (which would make it impossible for the city to lose money operating them). But that makes too much sense and I don’t expect it to happen.
posted by mw on September 11th, 2007 at 9:25 am
The contradiction that is Ann Arbor’s environmental policy rears its ugly head again.
posted by HNG on September 11th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Have you ever looked at an aerial photograph of Ann Arbor? The UM golf course is huge, beautiful, and not open to the public. I’d like to see *that* turned into a public park!
posted by Fred Zimmerman on September 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
One wonders why a public university operates a private golf course.
posted by tom brandt on September 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Hey arbordog,

Except for the part about the bar on Argo Pond with the carp food dispenser I was pretty much kidding. I figured that if I took a shot at pools, soccer, and dog parks somebody would take the bait. But of those three things I really only hate soccer.

The point was that the city spends LOTS of money making lots of categories of folks happy and that to me the golfers are just one more interest group that I don’t belong to but that I’m not petty enough to get pissy about if I see them enjoying themselves.

As for the environmental impact of golf course management, it is pretty negative, but it doesn’t have to be. You would think that in Ann Arbor of all places they’d be willing to expirement (and for all I know they’re already doing this) with limiting the chemicals, cutting back on the watering, and learning to live with a wilder course. Afterall, golf courses were traditionally groomed by sheep, right? Who wouldn’t love the golf courses if there were thousands of sheep roaming them? And think of the lamb chops! And wouldn’t the knitters rejoice!
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on September 11th, 2007 at 11:37 am
As a post script I should add that the reason I don’t go ape shit when I see other people enjoying the fruits of my tax dollars is that presumably there’s some city provided something that makes my own life happier but that other people may not appreciate.

I can’t tell you what it is off the top of my head, but I’m willing to give the system the benefit of the doubt as long as the alternative is screaming “Not with MY tax dollars you don’t!” every time I feel like I’m not getting mine.

Which is not to say that I’d pay 100’s and 100’s of dollars a year so that other people can golf, but a few bucks, what the fuck. And then maybe other people will feel similarly generous and I’ll get my carp feeder.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on September 11th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Parks are not just about recreation. How much acreage is devoted to golf? Softball diamonds? Soccer fields? Dog park? Playgrounds? Open space not devoted to recreation?

The question should be about cost (TOTAL cost of use incl environmental) in relation to the amount of space and maintenance cost per user spread over the entire tax base.

I don’t golf or play sports, no kids, ride my bike on the streets and walk my dog in the neighborhood. I don’t mind paying my fair share, but the question shouldn’t be about who gets what regardless of cost. To me it’s about sustainable use and good management for the entire city and not just recreation users.

As far as selling golf courses, it should be decided by a cost/ benefit per taxpayer analysis. If the cost/benefit for all residents shows that two city gold courses are not worth their cost I could not care less if golfers have to go somewhere else. It’s kind of an elitist sport anyway and the golf courses are seasonal use of large portions of public property.

It seems the city can’t keep it’s own building in order yet keeps wasting resources on things that do not provide real benefit to the entire city.
posted by anon on September 11th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
anon: I know it is a dangerous thing to say anything good about the city on this site but I think A2 does a good job of keeping things in order. In case you haven’t been watching, the state budget has been melting down for 6 or 7 years. Throughout all of this the quality of life seems to be improving, the crime rate continues to go down, etc.

All the cities in Michigan are hurting but A2 seems to keep chugging along. They do have some innovative programs that you may not support but it has been proven at the polls over and over that the residents do support them. The Greenbelt won with something like 65%.

I do not think the city council wants to sell a golf course. If golf doesn’t work out, they would just let it become a natural area with paths, cross country skiing, etc. They are still buying parkland in the city so why sell any? They do want to find a way to run them more economically. If they did ever want to consider selling any parkland the voters would have to approve it anyway.

I remember when they put the running of the courses up for bid a few years ago but there were no takers. There are a lot courses and golf may be running out of gas with the aging of the boomers.
posted by LauraB on September 11th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
You sound pretty new around here, pilgrim.

Laura, I don’t know what rock you’re living under, but if you want to back up your claims of lower crime rate, improved quality of life, still buying parkland, “innovative programs”, etc, please clue us all in.

From my POV, many city services have been reduced or cut including parks maintenance. Violent crime is up with the bar fights in downtown and reports of assaults are commonly reported. Cty council and the administration are widely viewed as playing a shell game with the budget. This is not an improvement in quality of life. Maybe well off suburbanites don’t notice, but there are quite a few folks rather pissed off about how the city handles it’s affairs and disregards the residents in doing it.

Greenbelt support shrank after the vote because a portion of the $$ was earmarked for land acquisition within the city limits, but it hasn’t happened. Many people who once supported it felt duped.

Even in these poor economic times, city council continues to give Roger Frazier a $400 per month car allowance for his Miata and 2 BMW’S. He still lives and pays taxes in the township even after council gave him $30,000 to find suitable accommodations in the city.

The emerald ash borer millage was found out to be an overpriced ruse. The loss of 1 park ranger that was said to cost $250,00 then went to fund politically powerful police. City departments that are allowed to operate at a profit, like it’s IT support that charges $8500 for each city employee, are ways to funnel more $$ into pet projects that the voters most likely would not support if allowed to vote on them

It’s widely known that Fraser and some members of council would love to sell some city land, (415 W Washington and 721 N Main and maybe even a golf course) to help fund a new city hall/civic center. Is that why the city is going to put out an RFP for development of 415 W Washington? To turn it into a park?

You comment on why sell any parkland just because they’re still buying it is so ludicrously simple minded that I can’t even fashion a response except outraged puzzlement. If there was ever a council, city attorney and administrator who could figure out a way to sell parkland or other city property without voter approval, this is the gang that could do it. And have no fear, they are working on those kind of contingencies as we speak.

Your last comment on lower usage of golf courses is one of the main reasons that council will use to sell at least one of them.

Frankly, many people in the city are kind of pissed off about how council the mayor and the administration are handling city affairs including parks. The results were seen in the last council primary by electing 2 people who were very vocal about parks and how Roger Fraser plays fast and loose with the budget.

Why was the parking lot along 1st street, particularly 1st and William, the seedling site of the proposed Greenway, not included in the final draft of the Greenway study committee? Was it to remove it from any proposed Greenway and accomplish the DDA goal of a parking structure upon that site?

Grow up and get real.
posted by mucho gusto on September 12th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Dear Becoming Jaded, if this quote from you is an honest appraisal of how formed an opinion of the inner workings of A2, why post at all, if you only to make yourself out to be totally clueless?

“I have to admit almost complete ignorance of the internal complexities of A2’s economy, government, and infrastructure”
posted by mucho gusto on September 12th, 2007 at 8:19 am
“There are a lot courses and golf may be running out of gas with the aging of the boomers.” Golf has been “running out of gas” for the past couple years. There was a huge spike in golf’s popularity in the late nineties that continued into the early oughts. This conicided with the economic boom of the same time (and the popularity and success of a young Tiger Woods). Golf is an expensive sport to play, and it’s popularity seems to rise and fall with the economic climate. It’s decline has nothing to do with the aging of a certain segment of the population. It probably would be a good idea for the city to jettison at least one of its courses, at least to insulate itself somewhat against the cyclical popularity of the sport.

“Violent crime is up with the bar fights in downtown and reports of assaults are commonly reported.” This seems dubious. Are there real statistics to support this assertion?
posted by Young OWS Golfer on September 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
The mean streets of Ann Arbor are worse than any war-torn nation or inner city or Ypsilanti. I mean, open your eyes. As the heights of buildings rise, so do the crime rates. Unsavory characters arrive to town via buses that stop every 20 yards, or by automobiles or stagecoach or any other form of transportation that isn’t “bicycle” to fight in the underrated bars of Ann Arbor. Other big shiny things upset the populous, detracting from the “collegial” atmosphere and upsetting the delicate balance of the province. A pity, really.
posted by HNG on September 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I’ve got to side with mucho gusto on this one.

The reporting of assaults are reported pretty much by definition — no statistical support is really necessary to substantiate this assertion. City hall does sound pretty out of control, too, with subsidies and power for both Roger Fraser AND Roger Frazier?! My sources indicate Roger Frasher (in the politically powerful accounts receivable division) is consolidating his influence among both bean counters and busybodies, which doesn’t bode well for anyone with a name that isn’t a homophone.
posted by Dale on September 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Mr. gusto:

Do you spend all your time making things up about the city? You must have a big axe to grind. I will be as brief as possible.

Official crime stats (from the AAPD via neighborhood watch) show that Part One, crimes against persons, (violent etc.) have been down in A2 for 7 of the last 8 years. Down 12.7% last year and so far this year (from a friend on the force, they don’t officially release this until the end of the year) down another 12% so far this year. A2 as one of the lowest crime rates for a city it size.

I don’t buy your shell game accusations and if you are referring to the parks budget, I believe council made the right decision. If they had changed their accounting method then yes I would agree with you but they did not. Despite the campaign you are others have run to say they messed up, they did not.

Every city in Michigan is hurting (ever read the Free Press?) but I think A2 is doing very well. I know they have a lot fewer people working but what else could they have done to save $$. Seems to me like they are doing all the services they used to before the cutbacks. In parks they are back to mowing every two weeks and lots of new stuff is going in. I think parks maintenance is fine. Quality of life in A2 is fine. Take a look at the citizen survey they have had up on the web site, something like 70% of A2 residents were happy with the city government.

If you followed what is going on at all you would know that 40% of the greenbelt money (remember 33% was the loose goal set in the election) has gone to buy LAND INSIDE THE CITY. Actually I have a problem with this, we have enough park land in the city already but still the point is, you are full of beans, council is staying well within the intent of the resolution. This was in the A2 news a few months ago. The Chair of the Greenbelt was complaining that maybe too many $ were going to buy land in the city.

The lone park ranger is gone and police are covering security in the parks in a “friendly” way but as ANYONE who followed the budget meetings would know, parks is not paying a penny for the police to provide extra coverage. The council made them absorb it into the budget.

A few years ago in a resolution, council said they were going to sell parts of 415 W. Washington and the N. Main property but that the floodway portions would be part of the greenway, sorry but no news here. As to selling parkland, why don’t you simply ask the mayor or a council member, I have and NO way would they agree.

You think IT is a pet project? For whom?

People upset? Again, see the survey.

The election? I thought it was all about Mike Anglin (a good candidate) working his tail off and W. Woods not having the time to go door to door like Mike did. In the first ward, Sabre Brier is very well known and again, a good candidate. No surprises in either race, the hard working, well organized, well known people won. Less than 10% of people voted.

Did you read the report of the Greenway Task Force, the task force with the leader of the Allen Creek Greenway movement on it?
The William St. property is recommended as a park. Get real.
posted by LauraB on September 12th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Opps, sorry gusto, I left out innovative programs. What the mayor is doing with energy is awesome, A2 is a real leader. Look at the LED street light program, last time I heard A2 was the only city in the nation (world!) doing this. Now they are putting solar panels on the Farmers Market and they just won a bunch of federal money for being Solar City USA. Solar panels are going to showing up all over town.

The rail proposal is exactly what is needed.

The Green Fair is awesome too.

Non-motorized program approved! Bike lanes are showing up all over town. As I remember it A2 is the only city the state devoting more than the minimum to non-motorized.

Who else has a Natural Areas Preservation team.? Note that their budget has been increasing.

The Greenbelt, only one in the state outside of some township near Traverse City.

That enough for now?
posted by LauraB on September 12th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“The reporting of assaults are reported pretty much by definition — no statistical support is really necessary to substantiate this assertion.” What does this mean? It doesn’t make sense. Thank you LauraB for the stats.
posted by Young OWS Golfer on September 12th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I think Laura has made several good points here. I have heard the same stats for crime. It is easy to read about some particular crime and think it is a crime wave but best to look at overall stats.

I think the budgets are being much better managed than they used to be in the 90’s when they were just spending money willy-nilly because they had it to spend. Look at all the capital improvements they are doing now without a tax increase. Projects they talked about but never got it together to do in the 90’s. New maintenance facility ($35 million?), new Broadway Bridges, new water and sewer mains, etc. Plus the NEW BIKE PATHS, something the mayor pushed and still pushes.

I agree the energy stuff is great and I want RAIL!

Parks look good to me, better than they were just a few years ago. All the negative stuff is coming from a few people in the “parks are everything” crowd. Sorry but priorities need to be balanced.

It is silly to look at A2 outside of the context of the state of Michigan and the state budget is affecting everything. Most cities in Michigan are in tough shape. A2 is one of the few that seems to be doing well.
posted by Dustin on September 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
It means Dale was fucking with you.
posted by js on September 12th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
mucho, how can you order LauraB to offer sources for her assertions, then turn around and say, “From my POV, … Violent crime is up with the bar fights in downtown and reports of assaults are commonly reported,” without citing any sources or stats to back up this anecdotal evidence?

As Dale notes, Part One figures are required by the Feds, and are a pretty reliable source for year-on-year comparisons. LauraB’s statement on the numbers jives pretty well with what I remember from the newspaper stories each year. The recency effect may have you remembering this year’s high-profile crimes more readily than those in years past, but that doesn’t mean crime is up.
posted by Murph on September 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
By the way, this

AAIO is primarily devoted to snarky comments about the flavor of the week as chosen by AAIO. Then we beat the latest post is until it is unrecognizable. Without reaching meaningful consensus, we repeat the procedure with the next topic.

is the most perfect description of what I’m trying to achieve with the discussion on this site.

Except for the “of the week” part. I’m working on that.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on September 12th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Mucho Gusto:

In response to your query regarding my post and the reason I prefaced it the way I did:

In my scant few years of posting, I have noticed that some of the most common posting methods on which a “foul” is called are:

1) Complete lack of knowledge or even familiarity with the subject matter. While this sometimes can’t be helped, to admit it outright at the beginning at least makes the community aware that the poster realizes his/her ignorance. Also, it’s quite helpful to make this known if one is seeking help, information, or input, since if I ask a question about why salt melts ice, but also say that I have no training in the fields of mechanics and chemistry, I can hope that someone will put the answer in layman’s terms, as opposed to providing 3 lines of complex symbols and equations. At the very least, I can avoid having to respond to such an answer with “sorry, I don’t know what those equations mean, I’ve never taken chemistry or thermal dynamics.”

2) In addition to complete lack of knowledge or familiarity, an obvious disinterest in doing ANY research before seeking the easy answers or offering input on the unknown. Thus you will frequently see responses in which the original poster is advised to “google it” as opposed to a helpful answer. Thus, I mentioned that I do try to find some things out, and as of the time of posting my attempts have been less than informative. Hopefully, though, my brief address of the issue can allay the community’s possible suspicions that I opine on complex matters with no intent to learn or base my posts on anything.

So, my preface was a matter of utility as well as etiquette, based on direct experience and observation.

As you have handily proven, however, it is certainly not foolproof.
posted by BecomingJaded on September 12th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Salt melts ice because salt is hot!
posted by js on September 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“Sabre Brier is very well known and again, a good candidate.” …A little Freudian slip showing someone thinks Sabra Briere is sharp and thorny, like a sabre or a brier?? ?
posted by David Boyle on September 13th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Well, THOUGHT crimes are way up, anyway.
posted by Nitro on September 13th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Rather than blindly swallow the city’s line, dig deeper for the facts

here

here

here

here

here
posted by mucho gusto on September 13th, 2007 at 11:35 am
What do those links have to do with the supposed crime rate increase?
posted by HNG on September 13th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/SafetyServices/Police/crimestatistic_currentjan1may31o5and06.html

Well, it does look like most crimes are down from 05 to 06.

Assault (4a-d) is up 4.6% ((but assault (9) is down 3.1%). Rape and arson remain pretty darn constant. Where crimes of theft seem to be way down.

Frauds up, Prostitition’s up, Drugs are up, DUIs up, liquer up, and Disorderly up. There is only one less weapons crime in 06, but since the numbers are small to begin with that’s down a whopping 7.7%.

In general it seems that the city IS seeing more crime related to alcohol and likely this means bars.

It looks like they are also arresting more prostitutes which I find interesting. It was up to six instances. I wonder what kind of sting was going on, or how the cops saw the solicitation in our tiny town. Now this is totally unsupported by fact, but our neighbors claim that our house was a whore house about 20 years ago, and the cops only raided the safe and never made arrests……I guess police conduct has changed over time.

Although general crime stats are down, somethings appear on the rise.
posted by christina on September 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Also for the truely bored

http://umichcrime.org/
posted by christina on September 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Mucho - Laura was a little off in her post above, Part One Crime was down 13.1% last year rather than 12.7%. I guess you are wrong about crime running rampant. (Thank you Christina)

Also, you question why the parking lot at 1st and William was not included in the Greenway Task Force report!!! WAS IT A COUNCIL CONSPIRACY TO KILL THE GREENWAY! Well, actually NO.

On pages 35 - 40 of the Allen Creek Greenway Task Force Final Report, 18 December, 2006 there is a whole section on why this parcel should be AN OPEN SPACE AND GREENWAY GARDEN. Sorry but your wrong again.

And now you expect us to swallow, hook, line and sinker, the data you link from Karen Sidney. Must be the same accountant who has been after the City Administrator for years? Really an unbiased source I guess.
posted by Dustin on September 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I merely stated my point of view according to what I know and read (unlike many folks who post here) Not every crime gets reported in the A2 Ruse Police Beat. Laura does a whole lot of cheerleading and spouting the city hall line about how groovy everything is at the Citadel. I put those links up as a counterpoint.

I’ve been accused of a lot of shit on AAIO, but not having inside information on the workings of city hall isn’t one of them. I was accused of making things up, but every claim I made about the inner working of city hall is backed up in the links I provided. It’s common knowledge that Jayne Miller kissed Fraser’s ass and got her boss, Ron Olson, fired after a 25 year career of building one of the finest parks systems in the country. She was in charge of the money losing golf courses and gets promoted??

Do any of you college educated kids know what an enterprise funded department is vs a millage funded vs one supported by user fees?

You folks have a real hard time connecting the dots because your knowledge of Ann Arbor, politics and how the world really works is limited by the bubble in which we live and your short term life experience.

Karen Sidney jumped through quite a few hoops and filed a mess of FOIA’s on her own dime to get that information. Why did getting that info that’s in the budget require FOIA’S? It’s public information! What else are they hiding?

Well duh! A2 has had bike lanes for many years and the new ones Dustin (who I doubt has ever seen a budget much less the city budget) and Laura refer to are the same ones with better road marking and signage.The “new” ones are part of new road work, they were always there, but are now marked. I ride every day and the bike paths on the roadsides are a mess, poorly marked and not swept of glass or trash. No money spent on maintenance. The marked sidewalk path on Packard (for those of you who venture past Stadium blvd) is crap. If you want to see a real non motorized transportation system check out Denver, CO
here

I spend some time in a couple of the city parks in my neighborhood and the grass in the ones I frequent was over a foot tall at times this summer. I thought the city was going to graze cows. There are several orange cones designating damage to storm drain inlets in my neighborhood. They’ve been there, unrepaired, since last winter. Still there today. Roadwork signs lay on the ground with sand bags around them all over the city, not picked up after the work is completed. (Not enough city workers to pick them up, I guess. Laid off, or privatized, I guess) Don’t tell me about how well maintained the city is and how things look great. You kids reallllly need to get out more often or get off your cellphones and start looking around.

The city made a lame effort at solar heating at Mack, Buhr and Fuller pools. Never worked right, expensive, poorly maintained (because no one at the city has the knowledge on how to operate them) and I doubt they are working today. The sod roof of the public library on Packard and Eisenhower is dirt, no grass. Big promises, poor execution by the city.

Dustin, the city has put off infrastructure projects forever, even when they had the money, now they still have the money (city hall/civic center $9.8 million slush fund) AND are raising water and sewer rates on an almost annual basis. And the Utilites department operates at a profit! Fraser and city council are more interested in building an edifice to themselves instead of taking care of our infrastructure. Their attitude is let the taxpayers foot the effin’ bill for both of them! About 10 years ago, they put in an osmosis type water treatment system at big expense, even though A2 was known for it’s top notch water! Have you ever been to the treatment plants? Know the diff between the sewage treatment plant and the water treatment plant? Know where each of them are? When was the last time you paid a water bill, sonny?

I’m only making claims based on my 35+ year history of living and working in A2, longer than most of you have been breathing.

I’ll be out of this burg for a while, so you can kick me around. I promise not to look. Now you can flame me for being a codger. Git offa my lawn dammit!

AAIO, I’d like some attribution for supplying this sites raison d’etre (or modus operandi?). A gin and tonic at todd’s joint will do.
posted by mucho gusto (on vacation) on September 13th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Is this the same Karen Sidney who will once (05?) stood before council at a public hearing for the budget and told them they had a $30 million deficit? Obviously there was no deficit. She has been distorting the city’s numbers for years and is hardly an unbiased source.
posted by ted huey on September 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I never thought I’d see so many defenders of A2 on this site. It wasn’t always like this y’know.

AAIO is dead. Long Live AAIO!
posted by mucho gusto (on vacation) on September 13th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Mucho Gusto…I just have to ask what the library on Packard and Eisenhower has to do with city government? The AAPL is not a city run entity. Are your other complaints accurate…not sure, but I’m pretty positive that Fraser has no control over what the library system does.
posted by Andy on September 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Mucho: Have you seen the non-motorized plan. The bike lane system is increasing by 300% over 5 years. Most of the bike lanes are brand new, like on Liberty or Pontiac or how about Stadium? Did you know A2 was declared the 3rd best city for cycling by Bicycle Mag. in 06 for cities of 75,000 to 200,000.

The city just won an award for being a Solar City USA and they will have $$ coming in. They have the money in place to solar panels on the Farmers Market and they are planning it right now. The mayor’s energy plan announced in 2005, if you ever care to read it on the city web site, says the city gov. will run on 30% renewable energy by 2010 and they are at 18% already.

Every older city is having to increase water rates to replace aging pipes. From what I saw at a council meeting, A2’s increases are modest compared to most.

Capital improvements? Ever wonder how they can move out of the W. Washington & N. Main maintenance yards to make way for your Greenway? They just finished a new maintenance center for $35 million? The city has been trying to get this done for 20 years. How about the new Broadway Bridge?

THE SOD ROOF ON THE PUBLIC LIBRARY! Yea I guess you do know a lot about the workings of the city. BUT WRONG AGAIN! The Library is a separate entity, city government has nothing to do with it. (Call Dave Cahill, he’s on the Library Board.)

Mucho, so far your batting average on facts is in the cellar.
posted by Dustin on September 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Dustin

Total part one crimes are down 13.6%, but part II crimes are up 4.6%, and ALL crimes are only down 3.5%.

I made compiled this from the websites:

2001 PI 4095 PII ? total
2002 3791 ?
2003 3774 ?
2004 3417 4552 7969
2005 3758 4572 8330
2006 3248 4794 8042

below is quoted from: http://bci.utah.gov/UCRIBR/PartOne_GroupA.pdf

PART I CRIMES are also referred to as “Index Crimes.” These are the eight crimes of:
Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny/Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, Arson.
Usually, when the news media talks about crime rates going up or down, they are referring to the eight index crimes. PART II CRIMES are just about all other crimes other than the eight Part I offenses listed above. The Uniform Crime Reporting Program gathers only arrest data for the Part II Crimes.

So it would seem over the last 3 years part II crimes have been on the rise. Since only arrests make a difference does this trend reflect more drunks and disorderly conduct in the Main street bars and other areas of town, or just that the AAPD is cracking down more and actually arresting as opposed to warning individuals. Or are we seeing both — the police are cracking down because night life is getting worse?
posted by christina on September 13th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
There has been a new development regarding the golf course
which we must now communicate to you. Months ago a man
was ordered on a mission which was identical to the city manager. We
have reason to believe that he is now operating with the city manager.
Council was carrying him MIA for his family’s sake. They
assumed he was dead. Then they intercepted a letter he
tried to send his wife :

SELL THE GOLF COURSE
SELL THE CAR
SELL THE KIDS
FIND SOMEONE ELSE
FORGET IT
I’M NEVER COMING BACK
FORGET IT
posted by Willard on September 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
ha ha ha ha ha ha, willard!
posted by peter honeyman on September 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Seriously, mucho, you’re claiming that there exist unmarked bike lanes?

I, for one, am thrilled about the (actually) new bike lanes that should soon appear on Packard south of Stadium. The so-called bike paths are indeed pretty crummy. It’s true that it’s been legal to bike on the road there, but I certainly wouldn’t say those bike lanes already exist and will simply be marked soon.
posted by Kelli on September 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“I, for one, am thrilled about the (actually) new bike lanes that should soon appear on Packard south of Stadium.”

And I, for another, who rides quite a bit, am indifferent. When neighborhood streets are available, I use them. I just don’t understand the attraction of riding on main thoroughfares (breathing exhaust fumes) when you could ride residential streets to get to the same places. Is it that people are afraid they’re going to get lost if they venture off into the wilds of Burns Park, Ann Arbor Hills, and Ann Arbor Woods … or what?

As a bike rider, the only place I care about bike paths are where there really aren’t any good side-street alternatives (Huron Parkway, Fuller, and State Street, for example).
posted by mw on September 14th, 2007 at 7:39 am
“I just don’t understand the attraction of riding on main thoroughfares (breathing exhaust fumes) when you could ride residential streets to get to the same places.”

You get the right of way more often; riding as fast on neighborhood streets may require blowing through a lot of stop signs. And for places you don’t go every day it may be easier to take the obvious direct route than to figure out whether there’s an alternate route. That might be different in a city with more of a grid layout, but around here it’s not always obvious where a neighborhood street is going to go.
posted by Bruce Fields on September 14th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Bruce beat me to it - it is lot faster riding on main thoroughfares. Also, more and more neighborhood streets are getting speed bumps, which slow down bikes as well as cars. In downtown proper, there are no neighborhood streets.
posted by tom brandt on September 14th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Bruce beat me to it - it is lot faster riding on main thoroughfares. Also, more and more neighborhood streets are getting speed bumps, which slow down bikes as well as cars. In downtown proper, there are no neighborhood streets.

Nah — bikes take speed bumps much more easily than cars do. How fast do you ride? I ride over the speed bump down Broadway from the top of the hill at 30 without a problem with just a little lift of the handlebars (BTW, that ride up from Island Park is a fun one). The bumps on Devonshire I barely notice at 20.

In terms of speed and distance, more often than not, there is a more direct route using neighborhood streets than the main thoroughfares. Look here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ann+arbor&ie=UTF8&ll=42.267433,-83.723159&spn=0.029567,0.053902&z=15&iwloc=addr&om=1

If you limit your riding to the yellow streets only, you’re going to rid a lot farther than if you cut through on the white streets.

And then sometimes riding on main thoroughfares is just plain obnoxious. Every now and then I see some moron riding down Huron at rush hour causing traffic to back up as cars try to maneuver around him, when he could be riding along Ann, Catherine, or Washington.
posted by mw on September 15th, 2007 at 10:52 am
“bikes take speed bumps much more easily than cars do.”

Yah, I’ve ridden down Broadway regularly both before and after the speed bumps were put in, and it makes a much bigger difference to cars than bikes.

“If you limit your riding to the yellow streets only, you’re going to rid a lot farther than if you cut through on the white streets.”

Well, we can trade examples indefinitely I guess. My most frequent trip in that area is between downtown and Trader Joes (or nearby), and for that anything other than Washtenaw is complicated and slow.

“Every now and then I see some moron riding down Huron at rush hour causing traffic to back up as cars try to maneuver around him”

Aw, the poor babies, it probably costs them *seconds*!
posted by Bruce Fields on September 15th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Is the difference between mw and Bruce’s experiences of times taken when riding through residential side streets due to different interpretations of which traffic regulations apply to bicycles when in these areas?
posted by JCP2 on September 15th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Nah — bikes take speed bumps much more easily than cars do. How fast do you ride? I ride over the speed bump down Broadway from the top of the hill at 30 without a problem with just a little lift of the handlebars (BTW, that ride up from Island Park is a fun one). The bumps on Devonshire I barely notice at 20.
I guess you more tolerant of these things than I. I ride pretty fast especially on my way to/from work.

As Bruce said, we can trade examples indefinitely. But I live in the Nixon/Dhu Varren/Green Road area, and work at First and Washington. I can either take Nixon to Plymouth, over the Broadway Bridges, to Beakes, Kingsley then First. Or I can take the “neighborhood route” of Nixon to Traver as it snakes its way through the Leslie Golf Course to Pontiac Trail and then over the bridges. The part of Traver that goes through Leslie is gravel, which definitely slows me down. I can tell you from personal experience that it is a lot faster to take Plymouth.
posted by Tom Brandt on September 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Well I recognize we are probably dealing with some very biased sources, I’d be curious to hear if anyone else could shed more light on the Roger Fraser City Credit Card scandal mucho gusto linked too. This might have already been a discussion I missed somewhere before, but it seems worthy of some discussion.
posted by MDS on September 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
MW,

I do agree that bike paths on roads where there aren’t halfway reasonable alternatives are more important.

However, I live on Packard, and taking side streets is slower and longer, and I think it’s useful to have the bike lane on the main road for faster trips. I do bike through the neighborhoods when I’m not in a rush, since it’s quieter and more peaceful, and the air seems better. But it’s not like there’s a street running parallel to Packard a block over; you’ve got to wander around a couple times to find good paths.
posted by Kelli on September 17th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Anything short of a freeway is a bike path. Yield to the bike, already.

Biking every day to work, I get almost hit more often when riding on side streets and sidewalks, what with the driveways, and the people walking dogs, and the increased visual obstacles. I think mw’s comments primarily represent the difference between commuter biking and biking back from the Farmer’s Market on Saturday with a loaf of french bread and a bundle of posies in the pink basket on your banana-seat bike, tra-la.
posted by Nitro on September 18th, 2007 at 8:53 am
_Aw, the poor babies, it probably costs them *seconds*!_

Huron is narrow and extremely congested during rush hour. At those times, single cyclist can turns Huron from two useful lanes down to one (since there’s no room for cars to pass the cyclist without leaving the right lane). And it’s wholly unnecessary, since the cyclist could easily use a lower-traffic parallel street.

I rarely drive anywhere in Ann Arbor during rush hour (I don’t commute to work at all), so it doesn’t really affect me, but I have to believe that kind of riding does more to turn more non-cycling drivers against bicyclists than just about anything other than a critical mass ride. It may be legal, but it’s anti-social.

_I think mw’s comments primarily represent the difference between commuter biking and biking back from the Farmer’s Market on Saturday with a loaf of french bread and a bundle of posies in the pink basket on your banana-seat bike, tra-la._

I have about 10,000 miles on my various bikes. I’d put myself in the top few percent (or at least, top 10 percent) of Ann Arbor cyclists in terms of distance.

I don’t commute by bike now (I work in a home office), but I’ve done so in the past (out to Plymouth-Green and out to the Briarwood area). My riding habits don’t change depending on the destination. When I rode to Briarwood, I used Olivia, Granger, and State Street. When I rode to Plymouth and Green, I used Devonshire, cut through Gallup Park, and used the Huron Parkway bike path. When I go to the video store on Packard, I use Ferdon. Through town east and west, I use Ann and Catherine or Washington or Hill. Pontiac Trail and Barton Drive are very handy. I just don’t ever ride Huron. Instead of Stadium, I use Pauline or Scio Church. I never ride Washtenaw.

Given limited dollars and many pressing needs, I’d much rather see Ann Arbor spend money on things other than bike new lanes in places where there are already good alternatives. I they can’t think of anything else to spend the money on, there are existing bike paths that could definitely use a good resurfacing. And that crumbling stretch of Huron River drive is waiting.
posted by mw on September 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
But if a cyclist is on Washington or Catherine, passing traffic has to swerve into oncoming traffic to pass, instead of moving into another lane. That’s not necessarily better. I find your example weak. If the bikes irritate you on Huron, why don’t you drive up Washington or Catherine?

When I ride on the sidewalk, pedestrians and their dogs are unhappy. When I ride on the side streets, people try to door me or they lurch out from behind hedges at driveways. If I ride on big boulevard streets, I make people have to change lanes, sometimes. Oh, misery.
posted by Nitro on September 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“But if a cyclist is on Washington or Catherine, passing traffic has to swerve into oncoming traffic to pass, instead of moving into another lane. That’s not necessarily better.”

No — those streets are wide enough that cars can pass a bicyclist.

I find your example weak. If the bikes irritate you on Huron, why don’t you drive up Washington or Catherine?

As I said, I rarely drive at all during rush hour–what irritates me is cyclists making such an unnecessary, potentially dangerous nuisance of themselves. I don’t object because of my own inconvenience, I object because of the stupidity and the tendency to make drivers despise cyclists.

When I ride on the sidewalk, pedestrians and their dogs are unhappy.

I don’t recall recommending sidewalks.

When I ride on the side streets, people try to door me or they lurch out from behind hedges at driveways.

Oh, c’mon. There are just as many driveways (and much higher volumes of traffic) on most of the main thoroughfares (Packard, Washtenaw, Stadium) as there are on the side streets.
posted by mw on September 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“No — those streets are wide enough that cars can pass a bicyclist.”

Well, you can ride in the little alley that’s left between driving and parked cars, but there’s a reason that’s normally clear–people getting out of cars, and pedestrians and cars pulling out next to them expect there to be a few feet clear alongside a parked car.

So the question is whether there’s enough width that you can ride to the left of that area while a car passes you on the right in the same lane.

Looks like a tight squeeze to me–and I can’t recall seeing that happen on those streets without the car going over the centerline or the bike looking awfully close to the door zone–but I suppose we’d have to pull out a tape measure to settle the question.
posted by Bruce Fields on September 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
“while a car passes you on the right in the same lane.”

Oops, I meant “on the left” there.
posted by Bruce Fields on September 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
mw, Full disclosure: I have so far this year alone probably ridden at least 300 miles just on Huron, just at rush hours, because that’s when I go to and return from work. So if I seem pedantic, it’s ’cause you started out by calling me a moron.

Sometimes I ride on the on the sidewalk, sometimes in the street, and I get to ride courteously in the street if I need to (because of pedestrians, or snow, or whatever) because I am a freakin’ vehicle and I paid for the freakin’ street like everyone else. Really!

Cars avoiding me is good practice for them avoiding kids when they step off the curb, or other cars, or pianos that fall off trucks, or whatever. Drivers of cars are legally obligated not to hit stuff that’s in the street. There’s an implication in what you’re saying that cars own the bigger city streets, and that’s absurd. I say again: anything short of a freeway is a bike trail. Huron’s the best maintained, most direct route to some places, and cars have to share the road. I’m unconvinced that I add appreciable time to the car commutes of the people who are stopping for red lights every other block. I usually move faster than the cars can through downtown, anyway.

“That kind of riding does more to turn more non-cycling drivers against bicyclists than just about anything other than a critical mass ride.” & “I object because of the stupidity and the tendency to make drivers despise cyclists.”

WOW do I not buy that. I’d like to believe I could make drivers despise me less just by riding up Washington instead of Huron, but I don’t think that’ll do it. Actually, I left a good-sized dent in a guy’s hood over on Jewett street just last week when he failed to avoid both me and the oncoming car. He chose to hit me. That’s a tree-lined, residential street of the sort that you recommend, not unlike Washington (which is just patently not not NOT, in fact, large enough to pass a bicyclist safely without swerving into oncoming traffic. At rush hours, the doors on all those parked cars open repeatedly so that people can go to the “Y” to ride nice safe stationary bikes). I’m not changing my route to avoid unreasonable psychopaths, because I don’t find that unreasonable psychopaths only travel on Huron.

It’s just a simple difference of opinion, but your opinion is wrong legally, morally and factually.
posted by Nitro on September 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
p.s. I’ll be biking by Huron and Ashley in about 20 minutes. COME GET ME, UNREASONABLE PSYCHOPATHS!
posted by Nitro on September 19th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Enjoy the ride. Yeah, I ride on Huron sometimes too, though not regularly these days.

And I’d argue that independent of whether Huron is the right choice for Nitro’s or my commute, there’s too many reasons it could be reasonable in some situations to just declare anyone who rides Huron at rush hour a “moron”. Maybe it’s an unfamiliar part of town, and they don’t want to waste time on streets that might randomly turn into dead-ends or one-ways. Maybe they’re traveling from one address on Huron to another. Maybe the light timing just works out better.

I’m not out to slow people down unnecessarily, and the possibility of holding people up at rush hour is something I’d take into account when choosing a route. But it’s one factor to weigh among several, and the statement that anyone who ever rides a bike on Huron at rush hour is a moron isn’t allowing for that kind of balance.

And, face it, it’s just not a real problem. When we get to the point that there’s so many bicyclists commuting down Huron that it’s really slowing down car traffic significantly on a regular basis, then we can have a nice argument about whether that’s the cyclists’ or the car drivers’ fault and about how to deal with it. I look forward to that day very much.
posted by Bruce Fields on September 19th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Bruce, it’s nice to see someone who can maintain objectivity about the whole cycle vs. car traffic thing. I myself am a biker of sorts, but am also forced to drive quite a bit as well. As a biker, I’m completely aware of why I see a lot of bikers using the road (even when there’s a perfectly serviceable and not overly crowded sidewalk at that point). Sometimes the pedestrians and occasional stopping of the sidewalk and then restarting of it at some point might make it not worth the hassle to go back and forth. However, I try to use the sidewalk as much as possible, because being in the road invariably slows everyone down. It’s more of a courtesy thing than a “I have a right to” thing. The problem is really people lacking courtesy and the ability to make quick judgments, I think. If I’m biking and it’s a time of day that has a lot of peds out and about, I’ll jump on the road, because peds don’t think about anyone using a bike, so they stand or walk three abreast, ensuring that no one can get by. It’s also almost useless to do the “coming up on the left” thing, because more times than not people freeze, or go through some weird panicky convulsion that puts them right where you said you’re coming up. And, of course, there’s the cell phone moron who just steps directly in the way and looks around, completely oblivious to the fact that there are other people in the town. I swear, if we could just get rid of cell phones…

But these bikers I’ve been seeing also assume the riding patterns of above-the-law kings of the road. When you’re riding as a part of car traffic, you’re supposed to obey the car traffic laws (stopping at red lights and stop signs, signaling your intent to turn left or right, not edging up along the side of the cars when everyone’s stopped, etc.), and about 3 times a day I see some biker just flying around like they’re in some Twilight Zone episode and the world’s deserted, and “finally, at last, I have TIME, time to RIDE.” Seriously, it’s only a matter of days before I witness a SERIOUS accident. Intersections downtown from the diag all the way down through Third street are especially bad. These bikers just get right in with traffic, going through stop signs, lights, changing lanes in moving traffic, getting beeped at, not caring, etc.

The reality of the matter is that no matter how fast you think you can bike, you’re really slowing the absolute hell out of the entire lane you occupy. For that reason, I avoid it as much as possible.

In addition, I very very rarely see a road-using biker displaying any semblance of abiding by the law or thinking about their impact on traffic. It’s things like this that lead to people just calling all bikers morons or assholes, and I can understand the stereotype pitfall there, because it’s based on experience.

I’m all in favor of bike lanes, except that if we get more bikers that act the same as the ones I constantly see, then the bike lane will simply become the equivalent of a second sidewalk that bikers don’t use, preferring car lanes to dealing with all the asshole moron bikers.
posted by BecomingJaded on September 19th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
BJ: Phooey. I see plenty of courteous milquetoast bikers all day long getting crowded into curbs and beeped at when they have the complete right of way. The drivers always have the option of murder if they get mad enough at a biker. All we can do is leave a good-sized dent in their hood, so they have an unfair advantage and I expect them to cut some slack in return. I’m with you on the cellphone thing. The guy that hit me on Jewett was on his cellphone.

I drive a lot at work,once I bike there. Up to 50 hours a week driving all over Ann Arbor and Metro Detroit on tight time schedules for the last 20 years, and I really can’t say as I see these many rogue bikers you describe causing any real problems. TBikers don’t always go by the same regulations as cars, but if they did, they’d slow traffic down more- like the way you ride on the sidewalk sometimes. Sometimes maybe a biker can go through a stop sign if there’s no traffic coming the other way. Sometimes maybe they can switch from the street to the sidewalk to accomodate the cars. Big deal.

I myself am not overly fond of those bikers in expensive french pants and logo-covered torsos who take up a whole lane of traffic instead of being over to the right, but I also recognize that in reality a biker has never made me more than about 45 seconds later for anything, ever, in those 20 years. I have documentation.

Okay, I don’t really have documentation, but it’s still true.

I don’t doubt that someone can come up with an example of a biker causing them significant delay or being rude, but that’s the same kind of aberration as the guys who were driving next to me on Packard when I was in the bike lane a few Months ago, screamed “GET ON THE FUCKING SIDEWALK, ASSHOLE!” at me from two feet away, and then almost nailed me with a half-full Slurpee before bravely flooring it and running the red light at State Street so I couldn’t catch them and explain how disappointed I was with their behavior. An extreme example, not to be taken as a common occurence.

If we have to keep talking about morons and assholes, how smart and nice is it to get all freaked out about having to brake occasionally or move your steering wheel a little to the left? In a city? Stereotypically pitfalling, why can’t the car morons and assholes just relax, put a different movie in their dvd player, have another gulp of frappuchino from the sixth cup holder, call their Mom and FUCK OFF?

On the brighter side, If things work out, maybe the car morons and assholes that I see can kill all the bike morons and assholes that you and mw see, lose their licenses, and then it’ll just be all of us reasonable, courteous people left, smiling and waving at each other.
posted by Nitro on September 19th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Some bikers are idiots - I was driving home last night on S. Fifth and the biker ahead of me ran three red lights in a row, beginning at Ann, then Huron and Washington - then suddenly he was right in front of me going the wrong way on the one way street. Luckily, I was able to stop in time! It could have been tragic - no helmet, of course. I always respect bikers, but this one was too much.
posted by just me on September 20th, 2007 at 6:48 am
I bike in to work every morning down Washington to campus. I usually do this between 6 and 6:30 every morning. In spite of the fact that I’m typically the only one on the road, I stop at every red light. Ditto for the return commute at 3:30 in the afternoon.

Those of you who drive cars, how often do you come to a complete stop at intersections? After one of those letters to the editor where a cranky car driver complained about bikes not stopping at intersections I watched the intersection nearest my home. While Washington traffic doesn’t have to stop, the cross street folks do. Of the 20 cars that approached the intersection on the cross street, nary a one came to a complete stop. The vast majority of cars just blew on through with just a cursory tap on the brakes. While I could make a comment about how it’s astonishing, really, how little respect car drivers have for the rules of the road, I realize that not all car drivers are like that.
posted by OWSider on September 20th, 2007 at 7:52 am
i tend to look at red lights and stop signs as yield signs on my bike, in general there is no traffic that i am impeding, i’m not running red lights without looking or putting anyone out by not following the letter of the law on a bike…i see it has a perk for riding a bike…an example. I’m going down packard and come to the light at packard and wells. I’m not going to sit there on my bike at the light if there are no cars turning left/right onto packard. call me an asshole and a moron, i don’t really care, i can easily justify it, there is a difference between blazing through a 4 way stop on a bike with cars present and using your head.
posted by nyambani yangu on September 20th, 2007 at 11:30 am
“If we have to keep talking about morons and assholes, how smart and nice is it to get all freaked out about having to brake occasionally or move your steering wheel a little to the left? In a city? Stereotypically pitfalling, why can’t the car morons and assholes just relax, put a different movie in their dvd player, have another gulp of frappuchino from the sixth cup holder, call their Mom and FUCK OFF?”

Kind of sounds like you _like_ the idea of gumming up traffic for all those ‘car morons and assholes’.
posted by mw on September 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
On the contrary. I just don’t accept that bikers gum up traffic any more than the kids that step off the curb in the middle of the block and the drivers driving at half the speed limit or stopping for no reason or signaling right and turning left or the traffic lights every block or the hot dog vendor crossing at the corner or the guy that turns right on red just as you’re approaching the intersection so that you have to brake, a little, or the giant truck that can’t get out of the alley or the delivery trucks parked in the middle of the street or, most of all, the other 700 cars you have to deal with in a five mile drive, because I am the traffic, just like them. It’s my road too.

And you can’t go too fast in a city, or you’re driving badly. I slow down to yield for cars all the time. Why shouldn’t they slow down for me? Because really, they’re not slowing down much. In fact, a lot of them don’t slow down at all, and pass me with about three inches to spare.

I don’t think that bikers are the one sector of humanity noninclusive of morons and assholes, I just think there’s about a billion more morons and assholes in cars than on bikes.

That’s primarily what slows cars down. It’s all the other cars. And as soon as you people quit calling bikers morons and assholes, I’ll be delighted to quit tossing the terms back at you. Maybe we can use doofuses and scalawags or something.
posted by Nitro on September 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Hmm,

What prey tell does the City NEED a new City Hall for? With these tight economic times, the rational for a new building should be really high and not just a small one. They don’t NEED one right now, so they can stop whinning and grow up and wait.

As for the golf courses, the only one not sold should be the one along Huron Parkway. I don’t know of any others. I like how it looks there and it is also a great part of the city and how it links in the the park.
posted by Elijah Shalis on September 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
It’s not the relative proportions of morons that’s the issue, it’s the fact that we’ve all got this notion that bicycles are exceptional, so everyone’s developed a homegrown theory about how they’re supposed to behave.

By comparison, car drivers are a model of unanimity. I know, I know, we all have an impressive list of counterexamples, but the fact is that most drivers do agree on basic points like ‘which ‘what’s a red light mean?’ or ‘which lane should I aim for if I’m turning left at the next intersection?’ or, good grief, ‘which side of the road centerline should I drive on?’

So I’m a great fan of stuff like http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Or if you prefer your bicycle education with a heaping extra side of crotchety rants and some possibly outdated technical advice, there’s always http://www.aadl.org/cat/seek/record=1080086

I wouldn’t take Allen, Forrester, Franklin, and others as the Word of God, but at least they agree on a consistent theory that comes out of some kind of tradition, and they’ve read a study or two. What they describe is also the way I personally learned to ride from my dad, a long-time bike-commuter, and it’s the same stuff you’ll get from the LAB’s bike ed program: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/

They won’t make the choice between Huron or Washington for you, but none of those sources would rule out either one. (They would all rule out the sidewalk, however.)

By the way, to get back briefly to the theme of this site, anyone who thinks Huron is “extremely congested” (or, for that matter, that Ann Arbor has a rush hour), needs to get out a little.
posted by Bruce Fields on September 20th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Elijah, what the heck is this non sequitur about city hall and golf courses? This is a conversation about biker doofuses and driver scalawags.

…kidding, of course.

Nitro, I agree, I think, with most of what you’ve said. The problem for me is that, even though there are much worse problems on the road than bikers (ie. people completely not paying attention and/or being absolute brainless dinks), I don[t see any reason to give slack to any particular group just because they happen to not be the biggest or worst offenders.

I don’t think that 90% of everything bad I see while on the road can be ascribed to any particular group (peds, bikers, drivers). The root of the isse is that people in general are oblivious to their surroundings and have no personal interest in making sure they’re blending harmoniously with the environment and activity. Drivers see a light’s red, then they assume it’ll stay red while they rummage around in their glove compartment. Mom and daughter drive 10 mph, pointing and admiring the scenery. Bikers hop off a curb directly into moving traffic, make turns into oncoming traffic lanes, eat a sandwich while they ride so they’re constantly teetering on the brink of a quick jerk/swerve into the car behind them. Peds stop and talk in the middle of the sidewalk, apparently unaware of the fact that other ped or bike passerby cannot phase through them. The problem is people, regardless of the means of mobility.

So, I say the drivers, bikers, and peds who DO take it upon themselves to ensure smooth traffic begin by disposing of the offenders. We really shot ourselves in the foot with the whole seat belt and helmet laws; these people are not getting picked off by their just desserts.
posted by BecomingJaded on September 20th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
as a pedestrian, i never make way for bikes on sidewalks — sidewalks are for pedestrians, streets are for bikes. (and i believe ann arbor law is explicit in giving pedestrians priority on sidewalks.)

on occasion, i do ride my bike on the sidewalk, but i get off and walk it rather than dodging pedestrians.

as for bikes and cars sharing the streets, i believe the law gives bikes an equal claim to the pavement. the suggestion that bikes create auto congestion or that they lengthen car trips by more than a few seconds is bullshit.

if i were the god of streets, i would get rid of most of the high-speed streets in ann arbor. they are a safety hazard to cars, bikes, and pedestrians, discourage public and human-powered transportation, and create parking congestion.
posted by peter honeyman on September 20th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
It’s technically legal for a pedestrian to clothesline a sidewalk biker if they’re being a scalawag, isn’t it? I always assume that it is and bike appropriately.

I was biking on the Main Street sidewalk at 7AM a while ago and I was threatened by an oncoming doofus on a skateboard wielding a lightsaber in a distinctly threatening manner, and I wasn’t sure who was supposed to yield in that situation, as he kept heading directly at me.

I’d have yielded to an unarmed skateboarder, but I figured the lightsaber put him in a different category, and kept cutting to the left, like he was from the UK or something, and I just kept to the right like we do here in America, and then he had to jump off his skateboard to avoid collision and seemed cross and bitter about the whole thing, from the tiny screams of indignation that I heard as I continued on my way.

So does anyone know who has the right of way between a bicyclist and a skateboarder with a lightsaber and UK driving patterns? Because I still feel bad about that one.
posted by Nitro on September 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Nitro: In your example the right of way is determined by the date of issue of the boarder’s permit to skateboard in an Easterly direction while wielding a high-energy fixed-position defensive weapon on the specific date in question. In 2006 Ann Arbor government established a committee of 12 members to address the issue of right-of-way determination and the city’s acquisition of more resident’s money. A 4-story office building in which to convene was built, and after multiple sessions the object-of-carry/time frame/mode of transportation/direction-of-travel permit matrix was proposed and passed. Residents who plan to leave their homes and commute within the city limits are to take an inventory of their possessions and means of travel, and document their points of origin, destination, and dates/times of intended travel. In an appendix, they assign items they intend to have on their person at the time of each continuous-direction movement. The 12-member committee then assigns a route and series of permits for each intended trip. The permits are to be displayed in plain view (usually on the forehead for non-motorized transportation), and upon an instance of approach between two permit-carrying travelers, each traveler consults his/her graph of who has the right of way on that day (a combination of dates, uniquely identifying alphanumeric characters, and color coding of each permit determines right of way). To obtain the permits, a resident needs only to go in person to the 4-story building (you can fax or email the offices to obtain a temporary right-of-way permit to make the trip there), pay the meters (they have different meters for cars, bikes, skateboards, sneakers, boots, hovercraft, etc.), and petition the committee, providing the documentation mentioned above. The afore-mentioned matrix determines the cost of each permit, so be sure to see the chart and take the right amount of money.

In your example, I’m assuming that the boarder had failed to display his/her permit in the lawful manner, thereby crippling your ability to take appropriate action in terms of direction and speed. This could be because the boarder simply forgot (there has been a problem with travellers forgetting to apply the initial permit at the first point of origin, or replacing it with the new permit upon reaching the first destination and continuing from there for the return trip or to continue on) or has not yet obtained the appropriate series of permits. A significant amount of leniency has been afforded to residents thus far, as the permit application/replacement gets somewhat complicated, such as when a person takes a bike while weilding a lariat to their car, gets in the car and exchanges the lariat for a bolo whip (new permit), reaches their job and takes an escalator while holding a glock 9 (2 different permits depending on whether going up or down on the escalator), and then rollerblades to their office while using one of those little ball-padle game things. However, after a couple years to allow for transition, you can expect to see some serious tickets being issued to offenders.

From your post, it sounds like you might not have gotten your permits either. Make sure to do that soon. You may want to call ahead before going, because recently the right-of-way committee has been butting heads with the historic district commission, city lighting committee, green belt commission, and city council about the usage of rooms and buildings in which to convene, so the place to petition for your permits may be different depending on when you go. However, this should be remedied soon, as a 24-member committee has been established to determine the schedule and assignment of rooms for the other committee/commission meetings. This scheduling committee’s new headquarters has passed through the design phase, and the 12-story offices for their use are currently in construction on Huron.
posted by BecomingJaded on September 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
from the ann arbor news

Police: Jogger assaulted by bicyclist
Posted by Staff Reporter Art Aisner September 18, 2007 09:33AM

Ann Arbor police said a jogger was assaulted by a passing bicyclist on the city’s northside after an argument about using the sidewalk.

A 53-year-old man reported to police on Monday that he was running in the 3000 block of Green Road at 9:45 a.m. Saturday when a man on a bicycle got within three feet behind him and shouted at him for taking up space on the sidewalk, reports said.

The jogger responded by telling the unknown man to use the street and bicyclist slammed on the brakes, threw the bike to the ground and punched him.

The bicyclist picked up his water bottle and his bike and continued riding on the sidewalk, reports said.

The victim suffered a bump on his head and a sore neck, and could not find his glasses, which he said were knocked off by the punch.

The assailant is described as white, in his 30s and is about 6-foot-2 and 190 pounds with a dark goatee.
posted by peter honeyman on September 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Everytime I come across one of these stories about asshole bicyclists I cringe and hope it’s not about me this time. But this one CAN’T be about me; I lost my water bottle years ago.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on September 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
the comments following the article are funny … especially the guy who pleads “can’t we all get along?” but ends up screaming “you self-centered puke” when another commenter demands jail time for the biker.

god, i love this town.
posted by peter honeyman on September 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I was almost hit by two (2!) cars this morning at the intersection of 1st and Washington. The cross traffic has a blinking red light before 6:30am, and Washington traffic has a blinking yellow. These two cars on 1st apparently thought that a blinking red light meant to go as fast as possible through the intersection without stopping. I think they were racing. After they screeched to a halt one continued to turn left right in front of me on to Washington. She came very close to hitting me.

Car drivers just don’t care about the rules of the road apparently. Thank goodness I’m a responsible bicyclist. Too bad more car drivers aren’t more like me.
posted by OWSider on September 25th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I think traffic is too heavy at that time of the morning for cross streets to have blinking reds.
posted by tom brandt on September 25th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I take this street every day, though. And actually at 6:30 there are very few people on either street. Main Street’s busier, but that’s to be expected. Oh, fyi–my “wish everyone could be like me” comment was not meant to be serious. . .
posted by OWSider on September 25th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I ride into downtown from the east, and crossing Main Street can be a real hassle at that time.
posted by tom brandt on September 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I have long complained about traffic lights at busy Ann Arbor intersections going to blinking mode at 10pm, when traffic is often still heavy. For one example among many, the corner of 7th and Pauline.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on September 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Next They’ll Be Selling the Public Polo Grounds

85 Responses to “Next They’ll Be Selling the Public Polo Grounds”

Leave a Reply