It’s the right building, but the wrong place. It’s the right place, but the wrong building. It’s too dense for a single-family neighborhood. It’s too far from campus and will encourage commuting by car.

But then a project like University Village comes along: dense student housing with ground-floor retail and lots of enviromentally friendly features, in a commercial area adjacent to campus. The well-worn anti-density chestnuts that have worked for years suddenly aren’t as effective. And then we see what happens when the NIMBY neighborhood groups and the landlord lobby get a little desperate.

True, there’s still the faux-progressive argument that University Village is “luxury” housing that has no place in an egalitarian, class-free society like Ann Arbor. Or, as the Daily put it in a recent editorial, “Ann Arbor doesn’t need its own Trump Tower.” Even the Daily’s news stories about University Village have promoted this point of view by describing the development as “luxury” and “upscale.” It’s extremely effective against any possible development, because any new housing is going to look like Trump Tower compared to the dilapidated stock that’s available near campus now. At $1000 a month for a bedroom in a four-bedroom apartment, University Village would indeed be expensive, but when a single in the dorms is going for $9770 per two semesters (meal plan included), it’s not as ridiculous as it sounds.

Burns Park resident Andrea Van Houweling picks up the populist banner: “I think we need affordable housing for students, not luxury housing.” That’s great that Ms. Van Houweling is so concerned about students’ access to affordable housing. Perhaps she will reconsider her membership in the North Burns Park Association, a group that just last month supported a zoning change to the neighborhood that would preclude dense development, specifically for the purpose of keeping out student housing. One neighborhood resident told the Planning Commission that the proposal was needed because “the student housing areas were like a war zone with illegal drinking and a wide variety of activities.” Naturally, the zoning change passed.

In the end, neighborhood groups and landlords didn’t even try very hard to couch their opposition to University Village in terms of affordable housing. What it really came down to is: “We like things the way they are, where we don’t have to live near students, but we can exploit them financially.”

And the Planning Commission tabled the project, in effect responding: “You do? Well, then, by gosh, maybe we should keep things the way they are!”

North Burns Park Association chair Kathy Sample complained that the development would bring more traffic to the area, “Not to mention the pizza delivery.” They’re students! They eat pizza! Do we really want to live near these pizza-eaters?

Increased traffic was also the stated reason for resident complaints about a proposed student-targeted development on the west side of town a few months ago. One man was so incensed over the possibility of students moving into his neighborhood that he came to a City Council meeting citing his military experience and threatening “black ops” against the project, although at least he promised not to harm building workers. The project, which had already been approved by the Planning Commission, was rejected by City Council in a 10-1 vote. Plum Market, of course, opened not far from the site of this proposed development with nary a peep from concerned neighbors. Living near there, I’ve noticed a definite increase in traffic since the gourmet supermarket opened its doors.

Landlord William Copi was perhaps the most frank in his opposition to University Village: “[University Village’s residents] will come from rental properties that constitute the neighborhoods stretching down State and Hill and other streets.” It’s as if Whole Foods showed up to protest the opening of Plum Market on the grounds that the new store would create competition and lure their customers away — and city government listened to their complaints.

In my almost seven years in Ann Arbor, it’s been hard to keep track of all the reasons why various forms of new student housing are bad ideas. Allowing single-family houses to be converted into student rentals harms “family” neighborhoods. Student apartment buildings let the university get out of its responsibility to build dorms. The university building a dorm will destroy the historic character of the city because it requires the demolition of a building where some Ann Arborites once went to high school. Sprawled-out developments are bad because they encourage car use, but denser, taller buildings are bad because they might cast unfortunate shadows. And in the end, it doesn’t really matter what reasons the landlords and neighborhood groups give, because city government almost always accedes to their demands (the Frieze building demolition is a notable exception.)

So it’s a refreshing change to hear for once that a development is bad because it will cut into a landlord’s profits and bring too many pizzas into the area.

I may never have been an undergraduate at Michigan, but I’ve rented in Ann Arbor for years as a grad student. The sneers about pizza deliveries and underage drinking are meant to target undergrads only; the falling-down housing and outrageous rents are decidedly not. In my time here, I’ve showered at NCRB because I had no hot water; I’ve had my apartment heated by space heaters that look like they’re from the 80’s because the heat wasn’t working. I’ve listened to years of rhetoric about how renters and students are undesirable neighbors.

And now, strangely enough, I’m about to leave.

Prominently featured among A2’s “compelling strengths and amenities” is “a three-week-long summer festival that features musicians and performers … runs the gamut from popular to classical.” Remember that when the festival’s directors are trying to argue that the event is just a wonderful public service that shouldn’t be held to the same labor standards as other employers. These kinds of events have a direct effect on the wealth of A2 property owners.

You’d think that student journalists might be interested in our local government’s ongoing debate on how they can best change laws to discriminate against students. But the Daily devotes its one story about last night’s Council meeting to some public commenters who don’t want the AAPD participating in immigration enforcement. Perhaps it’s appropriate that today’s opinion page carries a column ruminating about summer internships and whether they really allow one the “time to examine the world and your place in it” that a “gap year” study-abroad program could provide. With these kinds of pressing questions to ponder, one can’t expect them to focus on their classmates who have to spend a summer scraping out trash barrels.

CORRECTION: The quotation above — “the festival’s seasonal employees — almost all students — are not the kind of workers the wage law was meant to protect” — is the characterization of News writer Judy McGovern, not Easthope’s actual words, as we should have noted. Easthope writes, “I appreciate your concerns on this issue and I limited this amendment to a single small event. I have no bias toward students whether in high school or college. I had to pay my own way through college and law school and understand what students, especially college and graduate students face. I was also proud to advocate for and support the living wage law when we passed it on council years ago. If you review the council video you will note that I never mentioned anything about excluding students.”

5) This Chapter shall not be applicable to the establishment and/or continuation of the following if developed specifically for YOUTH, high school and/or college students: (a) A bona fide training program; (b) A NONPROFIT SUMMER PROGRAM; (c) A NONPROFIT YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM; (d) A work-study, volunteer/public service, or internship program.

On a voice vote, the Mayor declared the motion carried.

Internships are some of the biggest scams around. In fields like journalism and publishing, they are not only unpaid but often restricted to college students only, effectively closing them to all but students from the most affluent backgrounds. Inside Higher Ed reports on “the internship racket,” concluding that “American colleges do a fairly good job providing access to students of varying economic means; they should stress the superior value of achievements within school, instead of lending respectability and support to an internship racket that reliably, and inaccurately, presents the well-off as more enterprising.” (Here’s a good blog on the topic.) It’s unclear why the Ann Arbor City Council wants to enshrine the low pay of internships in law.

Okay, it’s totally clear.

By the way, our server has been slow because of spammers. We’re probably going to move servers soon; posting may be light while we work on this.