NIMBY Comitatus
“West side neighbors blast student housing complex,” reports the News. Maybe literally if they don’t get their way! Council decided to reject the Planning Commission-approved apartment building on the west side last night, after intense neighborhood opposition. And we mean intense. One resident, the News reports, “said the group would fight the project being built and occupied. He said they wouldn’t injure employees or destroy equipment, but promised ‘black ops’ and referred to his past military training. ‘Don’t skimp on the security budget…See you on the barricades.’” Now that’s the way to oppose a project! None of this namby-pamby rhetoric about “preserving neighborhood character” and “maintaining the diversity of the area.”
A year’s worth of work with staff, their recommendation, and an 8-1 PC vote in favor, but the City Council doesn’t want a sea of parking or a project that’s so big. If this is not an illustration that citywide plans need to be reworked, I don’t know what is.
posted by Dale on January 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 amHoly crap! It looks like I’ll be leaving Ann Arbor just in time to miss people strapping bombs to themselves to stop a “high-rise” going in nearby.
posted by OWSider on January 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 amCut and paste from AU:
Not a damn thing has changed in Ann Arbor in the past 5 years. If anything, the situation has gotten worse. If you want to build/update/open a new business in this town, it’s a complete crapshoot as to whether or not you can get the approvals. And at best, you can be assured that you can’t get the approvals in a timely manner. And to this day, citizens and Council don’t seem to understand what that’s doing to this town.
42 North passed through both the Planning Dept. and the Planning Commission with flying colors, only to be sandbagged by the whims of Council. To this day, there isn’t anyone on Council asking “why is there this disconnect between Planning and Council? We need to fix this so we can get the projects we want”. Naaah. That would make too much sense.
The Nimby’s have won the battle. More delays. More not here. Chaos and uncertainty plays to their desires. And they refuse to tell developers either where they should go, or what the projects should look like.
We now have sites downtown that charge well over $30 per square foot in an economy that could be politely described as a joke. You have to be out of your mind to try and open a business in Ann Arbor. Well, that, or you have to be a chain.
As for me, I surrender to the Ann Arbor NIMBY’s. You don’t want us in your back yard: message received, zero distortion.
posted by todd on January 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm>One resident, the News reports, “said the group would fight
>the project being built and occupied. He said they wouldn’t
>injure employees or destroy equipment, but promised ‘black
>ops’ and referred to his past military training. ‘Don’t skimp on
>the security budget…See you on the barricades.’”
I am convinced that if I was to say things of this nature to my local city council that I’d be arrested and charged with “Making a terrorist threat”. That this man is still free only attests to the high regard that freedom of speach still has in Ann Arbor.
posted by Louis on January 23rd, 2008 at 8:31 pmThe wacko that threatened “black ops” violated the first rule of said “ops”
Don’t talk about it. Do it.
posted by mucho gusto on January 23rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm“42 North passed through both the Planning Dept. and the Planning Commission with flying colors, only to be sandbagged by the whims of Council. To this day, there isn’t anyone on Council asking “why is there this disconnect between Planning and Council? We need to fix this so we can get the projects we want”. Naaah. That would make too much sense.”
Actually, there’s one: “Council Member Joan Lowenstein cast the lone vote in favor of the project, saying it was dysfunctional for a developer to get the green light from city planners only to have a project rejected in the final phase by the City Council.”
Quite the asylum.
posted by Wade on January 24th, 2008 at 12:15 amWell, Lowenstein voting in favor of the project doesn’t exactly fix the problem.
PC, PD and Council need to have a few working sessions and get on the same page. Citizens and developers would both be better off…..
posted by todd on January 24th, 2008 at 1:26 amthe anti-development christian ecologists have declared war on ann arbor? holy shit.
posted by peter honeyman on January 24th, 2008 at 9:39 amNo, but Lowenstein pointing out that the process is fucked up is a step toward addressing the problem, and I guess you need to take what little bits of rationality you get.
posted by Clem on January 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am“I guess you need to take what little bits of rationality you get.”
You’ve got a point there.
posted by todd on January 24th, 2008 at 10:30 amHi, dropping in out of nowhere on this, but why does anyone think students would want to live in a complex out on the suburban edge of town, far from campus?
posted by Brandon on January 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pmBecause that’s where they can get a super sweet deal on land??
Considering the undergrads I know want to be able to wake up at 9 and stroll into class at 9:10, anything too far from the Diag seems like a bad investment.
posted by Clem on January 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pmYeah, but not everyone can pay what it costs to do that.
Google’s chief economist, Hal Varian, taught at Michigan for about 20 years and wrote a widely-used econ textbook. In his first chapter he lays out the basics of the Ann Arbor student housing market and describes it as comprising two concentric rings. An expensive inner one and a cheaper outer one. In the short run there’s a finite supply (and in the long run it’s pretty finite in the inner one). Guess how people choose where to live?
posted by Dale on January 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm*Do you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men?*
posted by Brian on January 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pmWeren’t these proposed as high-end rent on the outer ring?
posted by Anonymous on January 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pmDale —
Some people choose to maximize the size of their living space per dollar at the expense of other elements of the equation (building asthetics, location relative to other activities, neighbors). But not everyone does. That’s why there are families still living in lower Burns Park instead of McMansionville Township.
And wouldn’t building a big apartment building near campus increase the number of people who whould be able to afford to live in “roll out of bed” distance from campus, unless the apartments were prohibitively expensive?
posted by Clem on January 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pmShort run, no, as new construction units are far more expensive than existing units. You probably wouldn’t see the effect of such construction for 20 years until that construction loses its newness premium and actually filters into the range of existing units.
I absolutely agree that reducing and streamlining regulation (and political opposition) to allow central area construction will have long run effects and we should be moving in this direction. However, the age-old rules of real estate in a monocentric city being what they are, cheaper land on the fringe is a much less costly input into the overall development calculations of a site.
Hell, I know we love the welfare queen stories about those dagburn East Coast kids with the wealthy parents who pay for everything, but there really are a good number of students who are working and borrowing their way though college and grad school and actually make these economic calculations.
posted by Dale on January 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pmCity Council asked the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board to make a recommendation on how to replace the 100 SRO units on the former YCMA site.
A public hearing will be held on Feb 12th from 6pm to 8:30 pm at the County Building at 200 N. Main, in the basement meeting room. The format is: Each speaker will sign in on a first come, first serve basis. Each speaker has up to 3 minutes to speak. The HHSAB, several Council members and the Community Services Administrator will be at the public hearing.
Please forward this e-mail to all of your contacts that may be interested.
Jennifer Hall
posted by side note on affordable housing on January 30th, 2008 at 9:26 amHousing Manager
Office of Community Development
City of Ann Arbor
734 622.9006 phone
734 622 9022 fax
I doubt this is very closely related, but this topic brings up in my mind all the vacant spaces in downtown Ann Arbor (maybe because someone up there mentioned how opening a business here is impossible unless you’re a chain).
It seems everyone’s so in love with local flavor that we make it impossible for local flavor to develop. I’ve been seeing so many businesses close or move or reduce their size, the reason given being “they raised the rent again”. Now, walking down Main Street, or up and down several of the streets perpendicular to it, I see sign after sign of “Lease available: Call McKinley”. It’s impossible to pass three street addresses without one of them being vacant with a “for lease” sign in the window now.
It’s as if everyone who owns any commercially-zoned properties here thinks they can charge this insane premium because of the “hotness” of the property, which I think is measured by people liking Ann Arbor because of its “local flavor.” But now no one can afford them unless they’re a chain, and in fact, I’m surprised chains themselves think they should have to pay so much. If I were the owner of a chain and I were walking down Main Street today, I’d say “who the f%$#$ is Ann Arbor? This place is on its way to being a freaking ghost town!”
I feel bad for residents who loved Ann Arbor of 10 years ago, or whatever, and fight tooth and nail to keep these developments from springing up and all that. I feel that, I’m there. But something at a higher level has to give; McKinley and these other “developers” have to realize after a few smacks in the face (ie. owning 12 “hot” properties that are vacant for 6 months) that this ain’t Times Square.
I’m in favor of local flavor. However, 10 stores all within a 10 minute walk of each other have the same “hand crafted” bullshit. I’ll see the same handblown crystal ornament at 16 Hands that I see at Crazy Wisdom that I see at Falling Water that I see at Peacable Kingdom that I see at Middle Earth, etc. etc., and then I’ll see the same thing on a bookcase at Art Van, where they put cheap artistic bullshit on their display living rooms. I’ve seen the same set of pewter measuring spoons at 4 Main Street stores for $500 that I saw at an airport in Seattle for $50. Stop thinking that because the name of the town is Ann Arbor you can charge 500% more for the same bullshit!!
You want your local flavor back?! Hey McKinley, stop thinking everyone owes you $12,000 a month for the honor of being on Main Street Ann Arbor. And hey, all you local flavor strore owners; get together and decide which store gets what, instead of all of you selling the exact same shit!
And you residents! I think you have a legitimate fight, but we’ll have to suffer to make it work. If you don’t want chains coming in, we’ll have to suffer through a ghost town for a few years before the developers realize their properties aren’t worth the poop it would take to cover them if they don’t get renters in there. Not letting these developments happen is a bad idea in terms of short term economy. If you want the town to bounce back, you need to let undeveloped shit become developed shit. But in the long run, I say keep fighting. But be realistic; keeping these things from happening WILL ruin the town for a while. Hell, it might kill it. But if the principal is what you’re fighting for, then commit (and that includes not paying $500 for the same “handcrafted” dream catcher you can get at a Briarwood kiosk for $35), and be ready for the consequences.
posted by BecomingJaded on January 30th, 2008 at 9:08 pmNot to defend McKinley at all, but they are not necessarily the owners of the properties they are renting — they may well just be the agents for whomever owns the building.
posted by Clem on January 30th, 2008 at 9:30 pm