The Politics of Development: If You Think It’s About Urban Density and Affordable Living, Think Again
There have been political battles involving The Moravian since B.C. 60. Seriously. Hapsburgs figure prominently in this history, as does Milan Kundera.
Here in Ann Arbor, The Moravian PUD went down in flames early this morning with very few of the young professionals (YPs) and students in attendance whom developers Jeff Helminski and Newcombe Clark had rallied together in a pre-Council meeting Happy Hour. Evidently, when it was time for their flash mob politicos to speak in support of The Moravian they got email alerts so that they didn’t have to sit around listening to other people blather on. Concentrate Media’s editor Jeff Myers spoke passionately in favor of the project. Developer Newcombe Clark, until recently, was Myers’s colleague at Concentrate Media. Myers cajoled Council members to realize that the development would bring mixed-use development to a neighborhood that desperately needed a shot of development botox. Concentrate Media, of course, is owned by Issue Media Group. IMG’s business model, according to Tracy Gosson, who works for IMG is to feed at the public trough then cover “local” government. Gosson is quoted in a piece published in Janaury 2010 in the Baltimore City Paper as saying, “…[P]artnering with government—or any other organization that wants to help fund IMG e-zines…—is her media outlet’s business model. ‘Government, a lot of the time, are partners of ours,’ Gosson explains in a Jan. 18 phone conversation, referring to Detroit-based Issue Media Group (IMG).”
Of course, IMG’s business model, and Concentrate Media’s coverage of “local” Ann Arbor issues, such as development projects like The Moravian, present potential conflicts of interest. Stephen J. A. Ward, founding director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was recently quoted in the Baltimore City Paper as explaining that IMG’s public-financing model “is a problem if the publication is pretending to do journalism….And it’s a problem for the writers—they have to ask themselves ‘How independent can we be?’”
Kelly McBride, the Poynter Institute’s Ethics Group Leader, says of the IMG/Concentrate business model “…Simply going to a government official and saying, ‘Hey, we need money,’ that creates a quid pro quo. Who knows what the unspoken expectations are?”
Rebecca Lopez Kriss spoke in favor of the project. If you don’t know who she is, you’re over 25, and not a member of the Chamber of Commerce. You’re also not in the loop about the Germantown Historic District Committee. Kriss was appointed to that group by the Mayor and Council. In her comments in favor of the Moravian, she suggested that Council members who voted against the project could proudly call themselves political creationists, for surely a vote against the Moravian was a vote against the inevitable evolution of the New Order of things as determined by those 25-30 year olds who earn $35,000-$50,000 per year, who want “affordable” 1-2 bedroom housing to fall from the sky like manna and, statistically, are the least reliable voters in local elections. Turns out Kriss bit the hand of the creationist who appointed her to the Germantown Historic District Commission. Mayor Hieftje voted against awarding the Moravian the PUD status the project needed to move forward.
Gen Y political flash mobs, and politically connected developers be damned. The Boomers and the Germantown residents had the final say: No PUD.
If the above description paints an ugly picture, it’s meant to. It was an ugly, adversarial confrontation stoked by the developers who used naive young professionals (YPs), drunk on their own importance to the economic development and economic success of our city, to stand up in public and make fools of themselves for the most part through sheer ignorance of the facts regarding the development in favor of which they spoke so passionately. They wanted Council to approve the PUD for the Moravian because YPs need “affordable” 1-bedroom housing. Alas, The Moravian offers, primarily, 3-4 bedroom apartments with shared common areas (i.e. student housing). The developers and Planning Commission members refused to release to the public the exact rents that would be charged. However, the YPs came one after the other, something like a scene from a George Romero movie, and swore the project was the Holy Grail of “affordable housing.” The YPs were fed up with “shitty” housing stock (to quote a lithe, blonde, young woman who forgot, momentarily, that she wasn’t in Cafe Habana with her cuddies sipping margaritas). There were those who lectured Council on how much the Moravian would contribute to the property tax base. No matter that the last several similar developments, including Zaragon Place, received tax assessment reductions from the city after the completion of their projects. The Near North project got a $500,000 present of tax dollars from the Downtown Development Authority after the project’s approval just because, well, Avalon Housing and the private developer went to the DDA and asked for money. The Near North project sits outside the DDA’s area of operation.
Where does that line for free money start?
I can tell you that I will work to end such tax dollar giveaways. Avalon Housing and the Near North private developer should expect their $500,000 DDA taxpayer-funded gift re-examined for its legality and, if found to be made illegally, revoked, should I be elected.
These YPs, evidently, had no idea that The Moravian project is not about urban density or lofty ideals. The development is about the dirty, pretty money that Newcombe Clark and Jeff Helminski have spent, and stand to gain from their “clever” (to quote the President of a local bank who spoke in favor of the project) accumulation of several small parcels. No matter that Ann Arbor zoning ordinances expressly forbid the accumulation of multiple smaller parcels, combined, then used to build apartment buildings 38 times larger than the nearest single family house. For over three hours, those in Council chambers listened as many impassioned people (several of whom had never set foot in Council chambers before) said the same thing over and over: Ann Arbor needs much more affordable housing stock. Many of those YPers and students who spoke on the subject mistakenly said that The Moravian was a project that would have expanded the affordable housing stock. In truth, by knocking down the existing houses, The Moravian project would result in a net loss of affordable housing stock rather than a net gain.
Go figure. Please.
The YPers had anecdotes: Their friends, they said, are leaving Ann Arbor. Their friends, they said, would love to live in Ann Arbor, but have to live in Ypsi because they just can’t find places to live in like, yep, The Moravian. Long-time Main Street business owners (Newcombe Clark served on the Board of the Main Street Area Association) came forward to support the Moravian. Over and again employers told stories about how their employees needed “affordable housing.” It was the largest single dose of paternalism I’ve swallowed in quite some time. If these Main Street employers want their employees to be able to live in Ann Arbor, perhaps the employers should pay a wage commensurate with the cost of living in Ann Arbor. Then again, paying a 25-year-old bartender $65,000 per year is not a business model that would work for our local Main Street eateries.
A U of M Professor, snugly tucked away in her Burns Park house, far from the proposed development, talked about the housing needs of her post-docs with a level of concern that I can only hope gets a write up in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Post-doc, for those who’ve never been one, or known one, is the academic equivalent of an indentured servant. Our pro-Moravian Prof., told Council she has a tough time recruiting post-docs because of (if you work in Academe try not to guffaw, please) the housing situation in Ann Arbor. For those who don’t work in Academe, let me explain. There are exponentially more students with doctorates (post-docs) than post-doc positions; it’s a research prof’s market. That’s why post-docs get paid peanuts and work like beasts of burden. Lack of affordable housing is not the main concern of, say, officials at the American Federation of Teachers, who are working to improve the lives of the several hundred thousand post-docs in the United States, including those who work for our pro-Moravian prof. Low pay and outlandish professional exploitation are the main concerns, and have been for the past 30 years as the number of post-docs has proliferated.
Joan Lowenstein, former Second Ward Council member and Newcombe Clark’s colleague on the Board of the Downtown Development Authority, stepped forward to urge Council not to give in to the “sulkers” who just want their own way, and who would stand between The Moravian and its PUD. It was a masterful performance full of contempt for those who are just, plain, spoiled sports about behemoth developments plopped down in the middle of quiet neighborhoods not zoned for behemoth developments. I have a feeling that had The Moravian been slated to go up next to Lowenstein’s house and on her block, we would have been treated to an armed insurrection in addition to plenty of sulking.
All in all, thanks to city planning staff, not to mention the members of the Planning Commission who recommended the PUD be approved, but who clearly didn’t read the city’s own PUD rules carefully enough, hours and hours of precious time were wasted on pleading the merits of a meritless PUD petition. Second Ward Council member Tony Derezinski voted in favor of the PUD based on the fact that the “professionals” had approved it. It should be noted that the work of those same professionals was methodically decimated by neighbors with city maps, planning experts, lawyers, and engineers employed by the Germantown Neighborhood Association.
I would argue that The Moravian debacle is proof positive that the “professionals” on the city staff and Planning Commission are few and far between. The Moravian Mess demonstrates quite clearly that a decade of giving away board and commission appointments at cocktail parties, and as plums to political supporters and donors, is wrecking havoc on the landscape of Ann Arbor. The seven members of the Planning Commission who voted to recommend that Council approve The Moravian PUD caused hours of Council’s time to be wasted in a fruitless public hearing, and on political posturing.
Ann Arbor needs more affordable housing stock. Absolutely. Does Ann Arbor “need” to do whatever it can to retain young professionals? Yes and no. It’s Gen X and Boomer employers who need to pay their Gen Y workers $35,000-$45,000 per year. These business owners want to push Ann Arbor into planning and public policy decisions that will benefit their businesses need to hire young workers, and pay them wages that result in a growing population that desperately needs “affordable” housing. Michigan is a “sticky state,” as I wrote in a previous entry titled “The Politics of Demographics: Why All the Hand-Wringing and Fuss Over Gen Y?”:
67.5 percent of people born in Michigan who are 18 years or older have stayed in Michigan. Conversely, only 22 percent of the people currently living in Michigan who are 18 years or older were born in another state. Sticky is where it’s at for demographers. According to the study, “In the Midwest, nearly half of adult residents say they have spent their entire lives in their hometown.” That, my fellow native Michiganians, is a huge home court advantage that local, not to mention state-wide politicians overlook in favor of attracting new people to Michigan, particularly Gen Yers. It’s a losing battle. That demographic is moving South and West, not into the heartland. Gen Xers will relocate to the Midwest for jobs, and do. Make Ann Arbor dual career couple heaven and the Gen Xers will come.
I almost went before the City Council at the public hearing last night and announced that I support the fantasy Moravian as talked about by those many young professionals who came before Council. That’s The Moravian with “affordable” rents around $800 for a 1-bedroom (at Zaragon Place, the rent per bedroom is $1,100) that really is a development aimed at young professionals.
However, the truth isn’t so pretty. This April 6, 2010 piece in The Michigan Daily throws down with the recent developments, including 4 Eleven Lofts, Zaragon Place and The Courtyards, purportedly built for “young professionals” as “over-priced luxury student housing.” The Manager of 4 Eleven Lofts was quoted in another Michigan Daily piece about the saturated rental market as saying, “As of the end of 2008, we had leased 4 Eleven Lofts to approximately 45 percent for the 2009-10 term, but by the end of 2009 we have already reached 65 percent occupancy for 2010-11.”
This May 2009 piece posted to the Concentrate Media web site, in fact, makes the absurd claim that Zaragon Place is for both students and young professionals. In April of 2010, Rick Pearlman, president of Zaragon Incorporated made clear the building’s target audience in an interview with The Daily: “It’s obvious. When you go around you see that most of (the student housing) is very old, very tried.” Local developer Peter Allen concurred, “The developers of these two developments know the campus. And they think they know the student values. So it was not a big leap of feasibility to think Zaragon and 4 Eleven Lofts would work here,” Allen said of the Chicago-based developers Zaragon Incorporated and Joseph Freed and Associates, who built Zaragon Place and 4 Eleven Lofts, respectively.
And The Moravian? More student housing. Glorified and expensive dorm rooms for students whose parents will pay the rents demanded of them for as long as their kids are enrolled at U of M. These developments are not about a vision of downtown density, or a vision for the landscape of the City of Ann Arbor. They are private dorms built in the middle of our downtown for a transient population. The Moravian is a private dorm whose developers want built in the middle of an established neighborhood for the simple reason that they bought up the parcels and want to recoup their investments.
It’s time for us all to have honest discussions about a long-term vision for the development of our downtown areas.
What I will never support is the use of PUDs to build high-rise student housing in our neighborhoods, or vote for a PUD to allow out-sized developments to “leak” outside the established boundaries of our downtown.
I fully support downtown development and density coupled with truly affordable housing—the need that was presented by those dozens of 25-35 year-old women and men who want to live within walking distance of jobs, restaurants and (some day) shopping. I wish they would run for office and vote with the same dedication they post to Facebook and Twitter. If they did, they might be better able to see through snow jobs like The Moravian, and into a future where our elected officials aren’t constantly seduced by the quick development buck, and who will demand professional work from both city planning staff, and appoint professionals to the Planning Commission who will never send clearly flawed planning decisions to Council to waste the time of elected officials and citizens, alike.
![Lanx Satura [sat-ahyuhr]: Ann Arbor’s Mayor Hieftje Talks About Crime Spree](http://www.a2politico.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Hieftje.jpg)
Short URL: http://www.a2politico.com/?p=3348
“All in all, thanks to city planning staff, not to mention the members of the Planning Commission who recommended the PUD be approved, but who clearly didn’t read the city’s own PUD rules carefully enough”.
-You clearly do not have any concept of government. The workers (staff) check plans for CODE requirements. Planning Commission and City Council make the POLITICAL decisions. Staff SHOULD NOT make political decisions – that is up to the boards and politicians.
“It should be noted that the work of those same professionals was methodically decimated by neighbors with city maps, planning experts, lawyers, and engineers employed by the Germantown Neighborhood Association.”
-Again, your City staff are paid to support the City codes. Your privately hired “experts” are paid to try and find loopholes for the persons paying for them (whether it is the developers or the NIMBY’s). If you do not like how the process is working, CHANGE THE CODE. It is not the City workers fault that you do not like the code.
-You are quick to complain about everything, but I don’t see anything substantial in anything you have written. Can you please provide some actual non-code compliant issues with this project? As I see it, it met the PUD code requirements for being submitted to Council for approval or denial, and was denied based on the merits of the PUD not being sufficient to recommend approval. That is how the process works. This is how democracy works.
What happened the Planning Department? Wasn’t the department pummeled about the inception of Moravian? Would an experienced Planning Department have averted this and re-directed this student development to the student portion of town?
Also, how on earth are we to get these old houses away from the rental market and back to single families?
Personally, I like the term “young professional.” Gen Y is a big group, almost as big as the boomers. I feel the term differentiates me from others within the sub-set. It encompasses many of the things I am proud of…educated, college grad, motivated, moving up in the world, etc.
That being said, I agree that the Moravian was definitely aimed towards students. What would I like to see? I would like to see students out of single-family homes and into nice apartments. The first time I went to Central I was shocked by how nice (and cheap!) their apartments were. I thought all students lived in run-down houses with only one bathroom, no dishwasher, poor insulation, etc.
Would I rather live next to a single-family home that is run down and filled with students, or next to a high rise? I’m not sure. One thing I am sure of, the problem of students having adequate housing needs to be addressed.
Last weekend, a young UM student died in one of those death traps. They think it was a prank, as the fire started on the porch. It was out of control by the time the alarms went off in the house. All but one made it out. His extended family is close friends with my own. When I think about it, I get furious. Students should not be living like they are!
If students were living in modern apartment buildings instead of run down houses, I believe they would be much safer. Buildings could be equipped with sprinklers and cameras, reducing theft, violence, and fire hazards. This is NOT just about protecting the “character” of neighborhoods. We should be thinking about the safety of the people in those neighborhoods as well.
Teaman,
BTW, the cost of North Quad averaged $485 per square foot versus about $150 per square foot for the Moravian.
@21:
North Quad will be similar to the 411 Lofts model of individual bedrooms sharing common areas and bathrooms and will only be open to 2nd, 3rd and 4th years. No frosh.
When I lived in Chicago, the neighborhoods that had the coolest watering holes inevitably were too expensive for the people you would find in the bars. There is no reason that Ann Arbor will be different. That’s the nature of a cool place: when everyone wants to live there, rents are bid up to whatever the market will bear. That’s why it’s expensive to live “downtown” in Ann Arbor.
Ironically, the underlying reason the “strivers” who spoke Monday night are so upset about the cost of living in the pre-WW I core of the city is that, as one woman stated, “It’s as expensive to rent here as it is in Chicago”. Her underlying point was that when you live in a town about the size of one & a half of Chicago’s 50 wards (a “small town”), you should not have to pay what you would pay in the Big City. This cognitive dissonance creates the upset.
The Strivers want what we all want – to have our cake, and eat it, too. They want the benefits of living in a small town (cheap rents) with the benefits of living in a big city (e.g. bars teeming with potential hook-ups). Keeping this balance – “Small Town Feel, Big City Vitality” is the key to BOTH our quality of life, AND our economic success: quality of life IS our greatest economic asset, we have nothing else to offer the world. Keeping the baby while throwing out the bathwater will require actual public discussion (not via non-public e-mails), a broader range of voices & ideas, and the ability to keep our eyes focused on what our true assets are, and how to enhance them.
Ann Arbor’s freeway entrances, and the Washtenaw corridor between Carpenter Road and the Ypsi historic water tower, are ripe for New Urbanism re-development. These are places where a critical mass of strivers can be housed in exactly the kinds of buildings they prefer. These areas need to be re-built for walkability. This enables our population to grow, our countryside to remain open, and the historic centers of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to be enhanced by rennovation and selective fit-in redevelopment. When New Urbanism destroys existing, functioning Old Urbanism, something has gone very wrong.
As much as I see historic preservation as a generator of value, we need to pay attention to the heart of what the strivers had to say Monday night. I believe we can accommodate both.
Re. 29. There is no legal conflict with the Mayor, nor Sandi Smith, voting on a project, whose partial partner is/may be Newcombe Clark. (I’m not entirely sure of Clark’s role in the project.)
The conflict would only exist if the Mayor, or Smith, or their employers, or immediate family members, stood to benefit from the project. They did not.
In any case, the mayor voted NO. Smith voted YES. I’m not sure how you can see a conspiracy. If there was one, one of the two didn’t get the secret memo.
Let’s not throw around words like unethical lightly. There was nothing unethical in all of this.
And is Clark a friend of the mayor or Smith? Why are you assuming? Because he sits on the DDA? Some members of the DDA can hardly stand to be in the same room as each other.
@27 Rabble rousing aka expressing your opinion (informed or mis) is the right of every citizen. My concern is that the vote was decided before the hearing ever began (Ryan Stanton wrote as much in an AnnArbor.com post well before the City Council sat down to “listen” and “deliberate.”) I sat through the hearing for three hours knowing full well the PUD didn’t have the votes to pass.
Newcombe Clark sits on the DDA with the Mayor and Sandi Smith, both of whom voted on Clark’s development project. His seat on the DDA I would not consider a conflict. On the other hand, Smith and Hieftje voting on their colleague’s project I do consider a conflict. Clark stood to gain financially, and their votes could, potentially, have earned their friend and fellow DDA colleague Newcombe quite a bit of money.
This kind of behavior is so ingrained by now, it seems the norm. However, it’s neither normal nor ethical.
Why is it not a conflict of interest for the Moravian developer to sit on the DDA? That just seems wrong.
Also, why are heads not rolling at the planning commission? How can they approve a Moravian when it is out of scale and unwanted and requires a zoning change? That just seems wrong. Does anybody know how to demystify this for love of all that is good & decent.
That rabble that turned out Monday appeared to be led by some sort of Svengali. Heads all filled with misinformation and probably alcohol tying up the meeting for hours. Where’s the community disapproval for such rabble rousing? Don’t the Young Professionals feel used? They certainly appeared willing to spout on the record about stuff they really don’t know about at all for the most part. Hey let’s trample on these blighted area’s people’s rights! Yay. We’ll repeat the false promises and premises of this apartment building.
The city can’t just allow a developer to change the character of the neighborhood, can it? yet these residents were totally put out by the threat of that happening and hired engineers and attorneys. Don’t zoning laws have any sturdiness? What on earth?
How could community leaders and councilmen support this Moravian when it did not conform to zoning law and was unwanted by adjacent property owners. I am obviously ignorant, I don’t see anybody else asking. Just seems sloppy wrong for a nation of laws not of men. I think it’s outrageous. Like we’re liable to be bullied out of our homes by a pack of greedy generational warring hooligans unless we’re lucky enough to have them try it in an election year or some flimsy flukey chance that saves the day by a whisker. What the H is going on here?
I don’t know how you can call that an established neighborhood,…a new dorm in town? probably not a very good idea, neither is a new apartment building, the market just isn’t there either for it, it would likely cannabalize other rentals, driving down Ann Arbor’s market overall. Who said it would get financed?
So not a bad call either by city council. Just a lot of noise right now.
Annon,
How could the high cost of the dorms not be a factor? What the U charges tends to set a floor on what student housing will cost since the U is the largest single landlord in town. I agree, the students move out ASAP since the dorms are a rip-off (but the U still fills them up, don’t they?), but the dorms still have an impact on rental rates. If you can afford a dorm, you can afford 411 Lofts; given that, the profit margins on student housing will be very high relative to other forms of rental units.
#20 Congratulations! It’s always good to make your mother proud. Too bad that blogger won’t be able to say the same thing.
@22 thanks! You had a bit of time before I did.
The Alliance of Neighborhoods posted the City’s list of 41 projects that were approved but have not been built:
http://tinyurl.com/yznxufw
I’m not sure the high cost of U-of-M dorms is a factor in this. Admittedly, the dorms are expensive and crappy, though the new North Quad no doubt will be more swank.
But the dorms are really only home to first year students and a few, few upperclassmen. Only first years, in fact, are guaranteed housing.
Most students move out as soon as they’re done with that first year and are glad never to go back.
A lack of dorm housing has been on the radar screen of the U-of-M regents for many years.
Hey you guys!! I got called a “cheerleader”!! Mom would be so proud
http://arborblahg.com/
I think that the list of proposed and approved developments will be an interesting read. But I doubt it will shut up the naysayers and the myth that the city, meaning City Hall AND residents, are opposed to development.
Property development a risky and costly business, but with that risk comes equal chances for failure and success. My hat is off to those who take the risk, but their success is not mandated nor should the bureaucracy be allowed to pick winners and losers by helping them find ways to skirt the process or the rules.
Capitalism can make people do strange things for money. Out system of elections, checks and balances on power and influence and particularly involvement by community are the best remedies against greed and the accumulation of power.
@17 I’ll post a PDF downloadable list of those projects when I have a bit of time today. The number approved is exponentially larger than the number built. The city has extended project permits for some approved projects eight years. It’s a list worth reading, and handing out to every developer who comes forward with a project. It’s also a list that begs the question of why some projects get years of extensions from the city as opposed to the city simply pulling the permits (as happens in other city’s after six months).
@#9: It is a myth, perpetuated by incompentent developers pushing bad projects, that Ann Arbor is a difficult place to get approval for developments. The City’s planning department published a list of approved downtown projects 2000-2010. Add those outside of Downtown and the result is a list of THOUSANDS of residential units approved to be built. About half have been built, half have not, due to financing or developer insolvency. Most were approved within a 3-6 month time frame. Ann Arbor has several scars to show for the rush to approve these projects without proof of financing–vacant fenced lots on Glenn and Wall Streets, and a decaying church on North Main.
“She gives Jews and lawyers a bad name.”
Haw! You’re making us laff to bust a gut.
I posted this at AnnArbor.com and thought folks here would find it interesting. I think you should take another look at what places like 411 Lofts have to offer if the choice is between them and a dorm. U of M is charging an ungodly amount of money to live in a crappy dorm; over the last 30 years they have consistently increased room & board charges faster than the CPI-U by a factor of about 1.5. I believe they have also reduced the number of meals they serve in that time window, further increasing the cost of living in a dorm. It does not surprise me that there is a glut of rental housing on the market given the rapid increase in supply recently.
The elephant in the living room is the University of Michigan. Look at the cost of room & board at UofM for 2010-11,which is $11,762 or about $1,470/month for a double occupancy room. Just for comparison, room & board at the ICC coops is $578/month for double occupancy rooms. A double occupancy room at 411 Lofts is $750/month with no board; but of course, a student has $720/month or about $24/day board budget to match a dorm at 411 Lofts. What would you pick? You’d pretty much be a fool to pick a dorm over 411 Lofts if you can afford a dorm.
So what does this have to do with the Moravian? Well, the profit margins selling dorm housing is a high margin business thanks to the pioneering efforts of U of M! Hence, developers now want to build exclusively student dorm housing since the profit margins are so high. Rent is usually about $13/sq-ft/year in Germantown but at the Moravian it will be about $17/sq-ft/year.
I’ll bite! How do we get this kind of housing built? Pat can you talk a bit more about your idea for an affordable housing trust fund? As for the Avalon money I don’t begrudge them the $500K, but if it wasn’t legal for the DDA to give it well then it has to be returned to the taxpayers. Them’s the breaks.
A2P Notes: A comment was deleted because it contained a personal attack.
The worst part of the entire sordid Moravian public hearing affair was Joan Lowenstein. Has she no shame? She gives Jews and lawyers a bad name. I can only say how very delighted I am she lost in the judicial primary. Chris Easthope is no great shakes, and one can only hope he’ll be booted, but Lowenstein’s true colors showed through in her comments about those opposing the Moravian. I was appalled by her lack of respect for the people living in that neighborhood.
@7 I don’t particularly like the term “young professional” either, but it’s what almost all of the Moravian supporters who were young and professional referred to themselves as. I find the term condescending and, yes, rather belittling. It’s the term invented by those developers of Zaragon Place, 4 Eleven, etc….and picked up by the media. If you’re smarter than I think, wonderful. Smart people make the world a more interesting place. As for the folks over 70, they’re the ones who are reliable voters. I’d love to see other age groups join that demographic. It’s going to take a smart person to figure out how to tackle that problem. I’m relying on you.
LL
The Moravian wasn’t really for 20 or 30 somethings who might work downtown.
Let’s be clear: It was student housing.
The old Ann Arbor News a couple of years ago had a good story about the fact that the only type of development in town that appeared to be profitable to builders was student housing, hence all of the developers pushing Zaragon,4 Eleven Lofts, and that giant complex next to North Campus.
The residential real estate market in the city is not good right now, to state the obvious. Single family homes aren’t fetching the same prices they had, and rents for many apartments are flat.
U-M’s demographics skew to the affluent kids who are used to living in new(ish) homes. Their parents will pay the rents that were going to be asked at the Moravian, which, correct me if I’m wrong, was mostly going to be apartments with more than two bedrooms. I don’t know many “young professionals” that want to live in 3- and 4-bedroom cookie cutter apartments.
Right now high rise apartments are expensive because they are a luxury. They’re a luxury because the city by and large refuses density. However, increase in building increases options which either lowers prices or raises quality across the board. Rent is expensive EVERYWHERE in Ann Arbor. It is more expensive in the high rises right now because those are among the only rental units that are of decent quality. An increase in supply sufficient to drive down prices won’t come from just one building, no, but if the city continually rejects new construction it will just feed the fallacy that all new growth will just be high end anyway. It’s a convenient argument, unfortunately it has little logic behind it. It’s a pretty simple. Look at rents in say San Francisco versus Chicago. Why is Chicago so much cheaper (weather aside)? They have room to keep building, and they keep building; more competition benefits consumers. Not hard.
Teaman nails it in the 5th and 6th paragraphs. This was the intent of the departmental reorganization, Hieftje’s appointments, Etrakit software and the hiring of Mark Lloyd to head the Planning Department. It was all about controlling and “streamlining” the process to fast track development. That’s why staff reports look like developer brochures. Etrakit software was partially chosen because according to Mr Lloyd, staff could just input the project info and data, provided by the developer, then “push a button” (direct quote) and out pops the staff report. It seemed that there was an effort to limit staff input in an effort to control the info that made it to Planning Commission and Council.
For many years, employees were encouraged to provide better “customer service”. This was intimated and interpreted to mean helping developers find ways around zoning requirements and the Master Plan. Employees were often blamed for poor customer service and encouraged (by City human resources) to attend customer service and leadership classes because of bad attitudes when “customers” complained.
I’m not saying that this was conspiratorial or malevolent, as we all know that to the political victors belong the spoils of office and ability to change the rules, but this was a big change to the development process that seemed to favor bigger well heeled developers who had the money, organization and insider networking to push through their projects. The “new” development process also seemed to be designed to fast track projects and limit the opportunity for public discussion.
Lady Lesko,
1. I would never, ever, ever refer to myself as a “YP,” or for that matter young professional – despite being young, and a professional.
2. Some of us folks under 70, are smarter than you think – apparently.
3. If you’re running for mayor, you may want to avoid belittling and entire demographic – or grouping them together.
Fair warning.
To further bolster your argument against the Moravian being about affordable housing, one need only look at the Washtenaw County Housing Affordability Needs Assessment of 2007. If one looks at this report, one sees that the Moravian site is in the “College Tract.” The report recommends NO NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE COLLEGE TRACT. Why? Because they will be filled by students, who cannot be dicriminated against and students generally have other means of financial support to fall back on and far more options for affordable housing than do low-income workers.
So, the question is, also furthering your arguments about the current state of staff and planning commission, why did Community Development support the Moravian? Were they misled about the project or its location?
Neighbors present two additional reports that were damning of staff and planning commission’s failure to thoroughly vet this project. A professional planner pointed out that the Moravian was not only too big for this neighborhood, but that it was actually too massive for D1, our most dense, most urban-scale zoning district! The Moravian would tower five stories straight up from just a few feet behind the sidewalk. D1 only allows buildings to go up four stories before being required to “step back.” The planner also pointed out that the Moravian (if the above-mentioned step-back was put into the design) could be legitimately built “by right” in D2. This means, per Ann Arbor Code, that no PUD can be granted. PUDs are not for getting around existing zoning. If you can build it elsewhere per the current city zoning, then you are not allowed to throw out the zoning in another area just to accomodate it. Duh. That’s why we have zoning, right?
The second report was from a traffic engineer. This engineer determined that the traffic study commissioned by the developer was faulty. That report was done for the first incarnation of the Moravian, called the Madison. When the smaller Moravian was submitted, staff (including the City’s own traffic engineer) concluded that a new study was not required because, according to the initial (faulty) report from the developer, the new building would fall below 50-trip threshold required to activate a traffic study. So what was faulty about the first report? The number of trips were underestimated and not distributed proportionally between Fourth and Fifth Avenues. If a proper estimate of trips was done, a traffic study would have been required for the Moravian and the City engineer should have caught this mistake.
I could go on, but in general, staff reports of late have read like developer brochures instead of the methodical, objective analysis required. My theory is that planning staff have been told that unless revenues increase (from developer’s fees) or other cuts are found, at least one planner will be laid off this year. Want job security? Approve more developments!
Planning commission clearly doesn’t even look at their packets (with a few exceptions) until the meeting time. Derezinski always falls back on the “we need to listen to staff, they are the professionals” line because it saves him doing any work. When the recommendation is NOT to approve something, his line changes to “this is a very serious matter and I think we should postpone in order to allow the petitioner more time to work on this.”
Time to toss out those on council who have no respect for City ordinances and the rights of neighborhood property owners! Teall, Derezinski, Smith and Taylor must all go!!
It’s easy to see these kinds of situations as wars between neighborhoods and development. They’re not. You hit the nail right on the head when you said that these problems are the result of Hieftje’s planning commission appointments. Jean Carlberg? Wendy Woods? Time to go, ladies. Erica Briggs is the only one worth keeping. Eppie Potts was a gem and she should be asked to serve again. She was a thorn in the Mayor’s side and he got rid of her as he has done with so many people who want to serve the city and not his political agenda. What would Ann Arbor look like in 25 years? I can’t imagine the city will look so very much different than it does now. Why would it?
TeacherPatti, the Daily articles were really interesting, particularly the one about the rental glut. They quote officials as saying per bed rent in houses is between $750-$800, whereas in the new developments, the prices are 25-30 percent higher. Who’s paying the rents? Not as many parents as the developers imagined, judging from the vacancy rate at 4 Eleven Lofts. City-wide, according to county officials, the rental vacancy rate has topped 10 percent, or some 3,500 units, and made apartment hunting quite a bit easier than it was when I was in college and the vacancy rate was much lower.
This is a really interesting debate. The YPs who spoke before Council didn’t want roomies. I lived and worked in Rome, Italy for three years and lived in the historic center. Rome is one of the least affordable cities in Europe. It never crossed my mind to live alone, and I earned a lot of money, relatively speaking. I just presumed I would have roomies, and I always did. My best apartment was a three bedroom with a huge terrace just a short bike ride from the Forum and Colloseo. My roomies made it so I could save money for all kinds of great holidays.
Joe, let me be clear and say that I think the city DOES revolve around you as much as it revolves around any other resident. I live about 1 mile from the downtown library, but we’re right on the bus line, and I ride my bike downtown as often as I can. We have one car and two busy kids, and I often end up taking my bike. City Council and Mayor have no control over, say AATA, except that appointments to that Board are made by Mayor and approved by Council. I would appoint members who are committed to the mission of AATA as a provider to the Ann Arbor Community, as opposed to increasing regional transportation service.
Projects like the Moravian are the answer if they are developed honestly, and with a vision for YPs in our downtown. Only a fool turns away people who want to live in a city. Ann Arbor does it by refusing to make tough public policy decisions about the high property tax levels, our city’s budget and, yes, by reactive development like The Moravian as opposed to proactive development.
I want to set up an Affordable Housing Trust Fund so the City can loan money to developers for affordable housing projects instead of giving away presents to private developers like the DDA did with the Near North project. We can court developers with projects for YP housing and make sure they get funding.
I actually watched a large portion of the council meeting (and my friend, Julie, provided constant and entertaining updates on her Twitter feed) and if I heard “young professional” one more time, I was going to throw up. I have heard the term so many times but never really knew what it meant (I mean, other than a vague concept), so thank you for giving it hard numbers. I don’t fit into the profile either way, which is fine with me
I would, however, like to know who the heck are the parents who are paying these exorbitant rental fees for their children-students???
I am one of the YPs struggling to live in Ann Arbor. I love the city, and I would love to live closer to downtown (now I live on seventh), but I don’t think that the Moravian is the answer.
I especially acknowledge that the city doesn’t revolve around me. I just don’t make enough to live much closer to Downtown, and I’m ok with that. I would like to see better transit options, however, so that areas that are too far away to conveniently walk downtown would still have access to the opportunities it offers.