Looking for what is called a reliable voter? Look for a white woman aged 70 and above (a Baby Boomer), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Looking for the least reliable voter on whom a candidate should think twice about wasting time, money and literature, the voter who goes to the polls with the least frequency? Look for a white woman aged 18-20, a so-called, Millenial (Gen Y) voter. Spending power? Gen Y’s spending power pales in comparison to that of the peak age group. According to data from U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average Gen Y individual spends $25,000 per year, and has an annual household income barely above that, somewhere around $35,000 per year. The big earners and big spenders? Those are people in the 35-45 year-old age bracket, Gen Xers. They pull down salaries that average $70,000-$80,000 dollars per year and pump into the local economy, on average, double what Gen Y individuals part with in a year.
So why, here in Ann Arbor, have our elected politicos been fibbing, clawing and straining to convince us that we need urban density, light-rail, to all stand on one leg, and bow down to the god Loki to attract and create businesses that will hire and/or retain Gen Y workers? State-level politicos have handed over billions in tax breaks to companies that promise to create so-called “knowledge-based” jobs, such as those 200 or so jobs created by Google here in Ann Arbor, and filled by those “coveted” Gen Y workers. Just to be clear, Google rode into town in 2008 promising to create 1,000 jobs by 2011, but no one talks about that now, especially not the politicians currently running for statewide office. They should be. In fact, state officials should use such failures as casebook studies on the waste of tax subsidies by the state and subsidies from our own local government.
Just to be clearer, according to a blog entry posted by Concentrate Media in October of 2009 written by a Gen Y Googlette, Gen Y “demands” are few:
- Monthly rent between $600-$900
- Close proximity to work and social scene (walking/biking distance)
- Option to live alone affordably
- No ‘cookie cutter’ condos – we want places with character
- Flooring that has not seen the ravages of six years of lost beer pong tournaments
I was charmed by the last “demand.” Then again, beer pong was never my tournament game of choice.
Gen Yers want to live alone affordably. To begin, that $600 monthly rent is very close to what is paid by those occupying what little low income housing Ann Arbor has to offer. If you’re a Gen Xer sitting in your house, you’re muttering something like, “$900 bucks is a house payment….” It is. Just one little problem, our Gen Y writer casts homeownership thusly: “I alternate between the dream of putting in new kitchen counter-tops and the nightmare of realizing that I could have spent six months wandering Buenos Aires for the price of them.”
So go wander South America, say I. I did my wandering; you should do yours, as well. When you come back, be prepared to live in a cramped apartment or find a roomie, get a job that pays $35-$40K and work your way up the ladder. It’s what the Boomers did. It’s what Gen Xers are doing. It’s what that “coveted” Gen Y generation must be prepared to do. But they’re not, and politicos in Ann Arbor, not to mention in Lansing, are encouraging an entire demographic of young people (currently Gen Y is aged 7-24) in their tragic delusions that society needs to provide them low income housing (with character, and good flooring, no less), the ability to live alone affordably, a “social scene” and a job right out their front doors.
My eldest tot wants to be appointed the president of a company some day, preferably right out of college. I’d like to “discover” a 1957 Thunderbird convertible, red with white interior, in a barn somewhere and get it for $1,000. Alas, some wishes are just that, wishes never to be fulfilled. When the tot works hard and moves up through the ranks, I’m sure the presidency and a corner office will await. When I have a spare $35,000-$45,000, that Thunderbird will be mine. Until then, I drive a more utilitarian vehicle, and the tot continues to dream and scheme.
I encourage the dreams and schemes up to a point, and this I think is where local politicos have lost their hold of reality and are simply grasping at trendy straws and kissing the wrong asses, politically. When the tot waxes on about starting at the top of the corporate ladder, I kindly but firmly point out that, as a rule, one climbs the corporate ladder unless one is prepared to launch one’s own business. Then one must be prepared to work one’s proverbial rear-end off. Thus, when Mayor Hieftje, Council members, and even state-level politicos wring their hands, mewl and puke about retaining and attracting Gen Y workers, I have to admit I am a total loss as to why we want to attract people to our state who vote infrequently, need low income housing, who would rather walk or bike than use public transportation (light rail jumps immediately to mind), and who pump only half the amount yearly into the local and state economy that a worker ten years older does.
Since John Hieftje has pursued his visionless and perverted folly of urban density over the past decade, the population of Ann Arbor has dipped slightly. We’ve lost residents to the surrounding communities of Saline, Dexter and Chelsea. Truth be told, an influx of thousands of Gen Y workers would generate exponentially less overall local spending and tax revenues than, say, an influx of thousands of 35-45 year-old individuals with or without families. Gen Xers would also bring their established businesses with them as they own 26 percent of all businesses in the United States.
So why aren’t local politicos standing on their heads, staying up nights, devising policies, encouraging development, and city projects tailored to attract Gen Xers to a Ann Arbor? Namely why don’t they disband the LDFA and stop skimming millions from our schools for Ann Arbor SPARK? Why don’t they budget to expand parks and recreational facilities and opportunities? Why don’t they spend money to create an excellent infrastructure? Why don ‘t they make it a priority to fund citizen services as opposed to building Temples to judicial dieties and Necropoli for cars? Why not make Ann Arbor a Gen X magnet city?
Well, first off, that would mean cutting off Council members Stephen Rapundalo and Carsten Hohnke from their positions as crony capitalist enablers from their seats on the Boards of the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK, respectively. Politicos hate to cut their cronies and political donors off at the public trough.
Here’s a suggestion: Let the few Michigan Gen Yers who want to go to the cities that already have jobs and “scenes” right out the front door—the big cities, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New York, L.A.
Would the local economy collapse? Would Ann Arbor cease to be a “cool” city (whatever the hell that means)? Of course not. Know why?
The truth is that the majority of Michigan’s current Gen Yers won’t just up and leave Michigan if their “demands” remain unmet. Why? There’s one last bit of research you should keep in mind. According to migration research by the Pew Social Trend group, Michigan is the fifth most “stickiest” state in the union. Just behind Wisconsin by a single percentage point, 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.
In reality, focusing political policies, time, money and effort on attracting Gen Y is a waste of political capital for any community that hopes to grow its economy reliably and diversely. Having a large pool of workers who earn, on average, $25,000-$30,000 less than the median income in our city will not expand the tax base. An influx of 5,000 Gen Xers who would buy houses would. Having a large pool of Gen Y workers serves employers, such as Google, who make pie-in-the-sky promises of job creation that give small town politicos like ours campaign bullet points and political hard-ons. Such a labor pool serves start-ups, such as those allegedly “incubated” by Ann Arbor SPARK. Ann Arbor SPARK serves up juicy bullet points for political résumés—just look at 52nd District House wanna-be Republican Mark Ouimet, Rick Snyder and Demublican John Hieftje’s campaign literature and campaign finance disclosure forms. Googlesque schemes give people like 53rd District House wanna-be Ned Staebler and his pals—such as Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke—at the Michigan Economic Development Corporation jobs doling out billions in tax incentives. Tragically for Michigan’s taxpayers, the MEDC has neglected to track actual number of jobs created and actual returns on billions of dollars of taxpayer investments. At MEDC, the idea, my fellow politicos, is simply to spend the tax dollars; not to spend the tax dollars wisely.
It’s the same principle at work in Ann Arbor and Michigan chasing Gen Yers. The point is to simply attract and retain “young people.” Where are the studies that show Gen Yers are the demographic that best for Ann Arbor to chase? Ironically, our Ann Arbor politicos are chasing a demographic group that, in this recession, according to another study done by the Pew Social Trend group, is moving back home with their parents in record numbers. They’re not moving into “work force” housing proposed by developers such as Alex de Parry with his Heritage Row Apartments development proposed for South Fifth Avenue.
Who knows, maybe the tot will graduate from college and immediately replace Steve Ballmer at Microsoft. Maybe I’ll find that Thunderbird, too. Pipe dreams are always fun, but the fact that our Mayor and City Council majority have wasted almost a decade crafting public policy around the pipe dream of meeting the “demands” of Gen Y has cost our city dearly, and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to remain in office and play out their own Boomer fantasies of moulding Ann Arbor into little Portland or baby Chicago.
It’s time for Ann Arbor to embrace it’s identity as a midwestern college town. There are almost exactly as many 15-24 year-olds in Ann Arbor as 25-45 year-olds. It’s the mid-range of that latter demographic, the Gen Xers, who will come, settle, buy houses, pay taxes and vote. We must educate, encourage, support and nurture our native-born Gen Yers so that they’ll want to return home once they’ve sown their wild oats in Buenos Aires, Portland or Chicago. We should embrace the Gen Yers we have as guests in our state while they attend our universities.
However, our Boomer politicos need to start kissing some Gen X ass if they are serious about fostering the economic viability of our city and the economic rebirth of our state.
Got suggestions on how city government could pucker up for Gen X and their families in Ann Arbor? Let’s hear ‘em!
Here’s my suggestion:
How about a coupon for a free rental at any canoe livery in town tucked in with the summer property tax bills?
Popularity: 40% [?]
feed://www.a2politico.com/?feed=rss2
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Carol Phillips, A2 Politico, A2 Politico, topsy_top20k, topsy_top20k_en and others. topsy_top20k_en said: Happy New Year to my Twitter followers. Here's a gift to you…have a sneak peek at tomorrow's new post: http://www.a2politico.com/?p=2435 [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention The Politics of Demographics: Why All The Political Hand-Wringing and Fuss Over Gen Y? « A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection -- Topsy.com — January 4, 2010 @ 8:44 am
A2Politco welcome back! You’re starting off 2010 with a splash, stirring up yet another hornet’s nest. The economic power of Gen X versus Gen Y is a very compelling argument that our current mayor and council have been chasing an ineffable dream of a city filled with young hipsters. Hipsters who need low income housing and who don’t replace the lost Pfizer workers by any stretch of the imagination so far as the tax base is concerned. So what you’re saying here is that new urbanism is little more than a ploy to provide cheap labor to companies like Google or the one supposedly launched by Spark. If Michigan is a “sticky” state as you write, spending billions to bring, perhaps, 1.5 million people to the state is a poor investment both economically and politically. The real story will emerge when the next census data gets released.
As for kissing up to Gen Xers like me…how about those outdoor ice rinks? Remember the one at Burns Park?
Comment by A2GOP — January 4, 2010 @ 10:14 am
A start would be for Hieftje and his supporters on council to start saying no to developers who want to build out of scale housing in near downtown neighborhoods like Germantown, that are being revived by young families investing in homes. Instead of encouraging this healthy economic trend, our city government seems to be doing everything in its power to kill it.
When residents of neighborhoods show up en masse and complain that 5-6 story apartments with inadequate parking will destroy their neighborhood of mostly single family homes, the mayor and council should listen. Instead, they go out of their way to demean and ridicule residents defending the integrity of their neighborhood. In the mind of the mayor and council majority, developers know best what’s good for the neighborhood, not the people who already live there. Of course, if the development project fails, the developer will have taken his profit for putting together the deal and will be long gone. It’s the neighborhood residents who will pay the highest price for the failure.
If Hieftje and some council members feel it is important to build large apartments for the gen y crowd, they should offer up the street where they live.
Comment by Karen Sidney — January 4, 2010 @ 10:21 am
#3 That’s the point exactly that A2Politico makes: mayor and some council members are basing public policy decisions and have allocated billions of tax dollars over the past number of years based on a “feeling.” These people have a study for everything and a consultant to help them tie their shoes. Where’s the study and/or consultant who is willing to say that policies to provide jobs and urban chic for gen y will pay off as richly as the policy shift proposed by A2P? I like this entry’s argument and hope it encourages those council members not entrenched in the current group think to question the track the city is on. I was particularly impressed with the percentage of established businesses owned by Gen Xers. Should Ann Arbor taxpayers pay millions to have Spark reinvent the wheel and launch baby businesses, or do we want high earners who may move here with an established business (small or medium)? I like the latter scenario much more than the former.
Comment by Yale89 — January 4, 2010 @ 10:43 am
I’d like to congratulate Karen Sidney for leaving the 1,500th comment on A2Politico. Karen has won an all-expenses paid trip to the next City Council meeting or caucus. The trip includes all tips and gratuities. Thanks very much for sharing your comments with the readers of A2Politico. Your name has been added to the A2Politico Virtual Hall of Fame.
Comment by A2 Politico — January 4, 2010 @ 10:48 am
Great post to start the new year! Thanks for providing the data and studies to back up what many of us have been saying for years–Ann Arbor is a midwestern college town and should be treated as such by our leaders and planners. I am so sick of planning commission members and council members and a mayor who have unilaterally decided that we need to aspire to become the new Boulder, Portland, or Seattle if we are going to survive and thrive. We’ve done very well in this community with the assets we have: a world-class public university, character-defining historic neighborhoods and shopping districts, nationally-acclaimed locally-created businesses (like Zingerman’s and Borders to name two)and a well-educated, politically and environmentally aware population. I would say that Ann Arbor has done as well as it has the past 50 years DESPITE its political leadership, not because of it. Let’s embrace what and who we are, not what some Urban Planning 101 textbook says we should be.
I sense this library lot RFP fiasco may finally be the straw that broke the camel’s back and that we will see a real citizen uprising in this year’s council elections. We need to throw the rascals out and take back our town!
Comment by Teaman — January 4, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Baby Boomers are 46-63 or so. A 70+ is in the Silent Generation. So Boomers have some contributing left to do as well. For that matter, we all do. Let’s not create even more false divides within our community.
That said, I appreciate you’re novel perspective on this, A2P. I’ve long wondered why we’ve made such efforts to make our city/county/state attractive to people/businesses who don’t live/operate here in hopes that they someday will. Attracting tourists is one thing, but seemingly saying that our current residents are ‘all set’ (or not good enough?) and we can devote our attention and resources to prospective (hypothetical? imaginary?) ones hasn’t made sense to me.
I agree with your suggestion for the GenYers to go elsewhere while they have those desires. Ann Arbor has long provided plenty of activities for university students, and what they couldn’t find here they went elsewhere to experience. We can’t be all things to any narrow age group.
On the other hand, “Why not make Ann Arbor a Gen X magnet city?” It already is. And if it weren’t it would be something else that we would better accept and embrace rather than deny and forget. Love and beauty and joy and opportunity exist everywhere. Over-reaching for something we believe we don’t have when it’s right in front of us comes from believing thoughts confused by fear and desire. Many of our local and state politicos seem well practiced in it.
Comment by Steve Bean — January 4, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
BOOORING! Apparently your week away didn’t shake you and the minority anti-council cabal from your on-going NIMBY hallucinations…same old garbage.
“We must not always judge of the generality of the opinion by the noise of the acclamation.”- ~Edmund Burke
Comment by Crazylikeu — January 4, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
Gen X makes more economic sense for short-term, Gen Y makes more sense for long-term. I’ve always had the impression that state and local governments were focused on post-college grads up to the early-30s age group, which isn’t really X or Y.
Regarding Michigan’s sticky status, it would be interesting to see the stats on 2007-2009, specifically addressing various age demographics. I would be willing to bet Michigan isn’t sticky when it comes to Gen X or Y.
Re: comment #3- You’re right in criticizing the development. I have said it and I will say it again, those apartments are not for young professionals. I don’t care what kind of baloney the developer and city council are trying to sell. It is too close to campus, and young professionals do not want to live in a building with a bunch of students.
Regarding the comment “society needs to provide them low income housing (with character, and good flooring, no less), the ability to live alone affordably…” As a young professional, I have never been under the impression that low-income housing was a perk being offered. I doubt most young professionals would even qualify for low-income housing (either buying or renting.) Affordable housing is a different matter. At least in Ann Arbor, I think a lot of the unaffordability boils down to the tax rates.
Comment by Janelle Baranowski — January 4, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Janelle, check out the Pew page. The correlations are really interesting. As for “stickiness,” it applies to those born in Michigan and over 18 years of age. Almost 68 percent of those people stay in Michigan. That leaves 22 percent who leave the state. Unless it’s completely unwise to make such an assumption, the ages of those who leave wouldn’t be focused in a single demographic, but rather spread out. Anyone care to venture an opinion on who’s leaving the state (which demographics)? Of course, the upcoming U.S. census will hold all manner of interesting data and information on this very subject. I’ve reserved my copy already!
Comment by A2 Politico — January 4, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Not buying this line of argument. It’s good to have the younguns around, hopefully they’ll stay awhile and call this home in the end. That’s just not happening right now.
Comment by rose — January 4, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
A2P, I did check out the research. One could assume the demographics of the ‘fleers’ would be spread out, but I’m willing to bet that is not the case. Think of it this way, what decisions play the biggest role in deciding to move? Own a home? Have a family? Kids in school? A career? Own a business? Etc. These are all things that factor into older demographics, not recent college grads and young professionals, especially those under the age of 30.
From personal experience, I can tell you that of the people I graduated HS with, probably 40 out of 100 have a degree. Of those, I would guess that 20-30 have moved out of state. Of the rest, I’m estimating ~half of them are not employed in a professional field, which means that there is still a chance they will end up out of state. From college, out of ~60 or so friends I have kept in touch with, 4 are still in state. Most everyone in my age group that I speak with say the same things.
I have a great job and I still consider moving out of state because there are so few young professionals left here. The girl that was previously in my position moved for the same reason (like me, she had few to no friends left in the area, and dating prospects are dismal at best. Now that I think about it, everyone I know from college that did stay, did so in part because they were/are in a relationship.)
Obviously, I don’t have any facts to back any of this up. It will be interesting to find out if these common experiences among people I know and have met are in fact part of a larger trend.
On a different note, regarding the income discrepancies you discussed, a couple of thoughts: Less income does not necessarily mean less disposable income. Also, paying $900/mo for a rental results in more property taxes than $900/mo for owner-occupied homes (I’ve heard it can be almost double.) These additional taxes are passed along to renters in their monthly rate. I could be totally wrong (I have no background in accounting or finance) but it seems like a single young renter would be a better bet than a family of four given similar home values. (?)
Comment by Janelle Baranowski — January 4, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
@ #8 Mr. Crazy
1) I like your Edmund Burke quote. His implication that there is a “Silent Majority” is probably true in all times and places, not simply Nixon’s presidency. Most people have more acute issues – or more fun activities – to engage them than mere civic life.
2) Forgive the impertinence, but I have to know: you write with great passion about this site, the people who post on it, the people who read it, and the content of its discussions. With this passion, you have asserted your belief that the site is irrelevant to our civic life due to who writes on it and who reads (and does not!) read it. Now you say that you find the content – and the discussions – to be boring. If the site is unimportant in the civic life of our community, and not worthwhile intellectually to boot, from whence cometh this great passion? To what great end is all your life-force expended upon the irrelevant and boring?
Comment by John Floyd — January 4, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
Mr. Crazy? Why not Ms. Crazy? The Crazy One drops in because A2P blog is like potato chips. I’ll just read one post. I’ll just post one time. The Crazy One is powerless against the clever writing, humor and thought-provoking posts, not to mention the entertainment value of comments such as yours. This post wasn’t the least bit boooooring. Maybe next time The Crazy One will put a little more effort into the discussion and actually engage instead of barking, yipping and nipping then turning tail like a startled chihuahua.
Comment by Anne B. — January 4, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
@Crazylikeu – I think you’re looking for what conversation should be taking place instead of more knocks on SPARK or a parking garage.
I guess I’d argue for a generation Y push.
I found the article in the Chronicle (http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/12/28/column-visions-for-the-library-lot/) about the library lot refreshing. I’m not Generation X or Y but at the tail end of the baby boomers. I really liked that the students were presenting a plan that did not only include the library lot but encompassed a good portion of the downtown. The students were envisioning areas like Arlington, Virginia where national franchise stores anchor retail and the community stuff goes in between (i.e. developers pay for the development, none of this public/private partner nonsense). Imagine, an Apple store downtown instead having to drive to the mall (and I’m not even an Apple “fanboy”).
Sure, we have a nice downtown but everything has to grow. If you suppress growth in one place, it’s like wack’o'mole, it’ll ooze just past the greenbelt. Think of all that lost city revenue growing in Scio township, because they have a plan.
Comment by Joe Hood — January 4, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Joe Hood,
Thanks for the link. After reading the article, I realized why I think of so many other cities as “cooler” than Ann Arbor. All of these downtowns have the layout you described, national chains anchoring local businesses. For example, Columbus comes to mind, more specifically their “student” downtown area along High Street. I’m thinking if you were to draw a map consisting of this area, it would be similar in size, population, and demographics to downtown Ann Arbor and its surroundings.
Comment by Janelle Baranowski — January 5, 2010 @ 10:07 am
#18 The truth is that Ann Arbor’s population isn’t growing. Of course the 2010 census will give us the definitive answer, but the Census folks in the interim show Ann Arbor as having lost population in the past three years. So it’s not a question of whether A2 should grow, but a clear indictment of the failure of the policies pushed to get growth.
Comment by A2 Politico — January 5, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
The efforts to accommodate, Gen Y with specific forms of habitat in certain quarters of our city, can be understood as an expansion or updating of the great American Segregation Project. With the inclusion of age groups on the list of things Americans need to have kept apart, our custom of segregation will live on. Even if we now and then strike one category from the list, we can easily find another to fill its place, especially if there might be found some benefit to commerce. One often hears Ann Arbor’s council reps or planning commissioners anxiously and rhetorically asking: “Where will we put them?” (them, being the “those-who-are-not-here”).
But isn’t it time to spare this poor generation our ministrations and intrusions? After everything they’ve endured–helicopter parenting, forced consumerism and Barney—the greatest blessing we could bestow on this much abused generation would be the gift of neglect—allow them the opportunity of finding their own way in this world.
Also wearisome, are the marching orders issued to other age groups. The very young and those over 35 ought now scram and make way, move along, waddle off into the woods and die of hypothermia or something. The sequestering of generations is a great American folly. We just can’t shake ourselves free from the unwholesome habit of classifying, prioritizing and eliminating based on arbitrary categories. I’ve sometimes wondered if our ridiculous use-zoning codes might derive from the same mania that separates people based on age, race, gender etc.—the segregation of housing from dairies, bakeries, cafes and sewing machine repair shops. It’s as American as a cafeteria plate, the peas are inedible and the whole proposition untenable.
This latest adventure in American segregation is accompanied by much fretting over an abstract population that “isn’t here”—or at least not in sufficient numbers. Our communal resources are to be expended in attracting that elusive species–the gainfully employed Gen-Yer. Though, in our city, it is also possible that the political and administrative classes have found their obligations to “those-who-are-already-here”, in the form of bridges, human services, clean water, sewers, etc, tedious and unrewarding. “I fixed the Stadium bridge” might fail to impress in Lansing or DC. Resumes need padding with les grands projects—financed, naturally, by us–even if our contributions accelerate our premature obsolescence.
We Ann Arborites dare not complain of our tax burdens lest we be labeled “un-liberal”, for it is a given that liberals love the paying of taxes. And if our leaders decide to spend the loot on a row of virtual porta-brothals to enliven Washington St, well that’s democracy. What better way to spend the booty than in beating our sister “cool cities’” to the title “the coolest city in the entire State of Michigan”. Of course we’ll be needing a theme– 24/7 Buzzzz or maybe “Pleasure Island”. A succession of Bar Louie clones, engineered to lure gangs of braying Pinocchio’s, would clinch the title. You needn’t trouble your mind about the fate of our dear town following the inevitable decline of our darling Gen-Ys into adulthood and debt. “Hey, that’s the beauty part, we start all over again,” chuckles the Coachman.
Our burghers, unburdened by doubt or modesty, are wonking-up faith-based policies to confine our city’s future within neo-liberal walls, immured from the meddling of the citizenry. Their faith is buttressed by junk-theories like Richard Florida’s “The Creative Class”. These beliefs would be harmless if they didn’t come with imperatives like “get gen y or die”. The wants/needs of “those who-are-not-here”, are indistinguishable. So the city’s spending bender is justified because the procurement of a prefab life style–rationalized, packaged, already assembled–is necessary to attract a generation considered too feckless to house, feed and entertain itself. This is insulting. If I were a Gen Yer, I’d flee this town before they caught me and forced me to Live Work and Play within Sector Y.
Gen X, Gen Y, the Creative Class are abstractions. It doesn’t cost a cent to spout abstract nonsense, but the servicing of abstractions comes at quite a cost. Just consider the cost of our “war on the abstraction called terror”. Locally our politicos are perennially stalking “those-who are-not-here”, ever anticipating their imagined needs, which necessarily supplant the corporeal needs of real-time natives. These costly endeavors, in the form of subsidies, bond payments and service reductions, are among the sacrifices Growth and Change demand of us. This two-headed abstraction–said to be the issue of the Zeitgeist, itself—begat “those-who-are-not-here” in an unholy coupling witnessed by “those-who-cannot-be-named”. So what can we do?
We’ve hired consultants, specializing in the attraction, care and feeding of these abstractions. They inform us that “those-who-are-not-here” will never nest among us unless we provide “new, nice, close to downtown, loft-like apartments with bamboo flooring and stainless steel countertops, and at least 18 stories above it all”. What else can our politicians say except “Á votre service! And for you, our most revered and penetrable generation [for now], the price will be under $700/mo thanks to the good faith and credit plus the taxing authority of the city.”
Do the Burghers of Tree Town really believe Gen Y will rescue our town from the selfish, doddering boomers? That I cannot say, for they shelter the content of their hearts within the folds of their doctored personas. Of course, one sometimes suspects that Gen Y has simply been found useful, and that their reported abstinence from voting only increases their charm. You know–just in case.
Comment by Lou Glorie — January 6, 2010 @ 2:39 am
Mr. Hood,
I am intrigued by your assertion that “everything has to grow”. Is it your contention that “sustainability”, i.e. the idea of avoiding the need for constant, new, additional inputs, is a false premise? Can you elaborate? Thanks.
Comment by John Floyd — January 6, 2010 @ 11:20 am
@18: Ann Arbor’s population isn’t growing but how about right outside Ann Arbor?
@21: After reading your post, I’ve come to a revelation (or perhaps a new theory): Liberals like paying taxes because they feel government is an investment. The ideal is to have central planning in one place and have all problems dealt with there. Which leads me to a point about bringing in the Gen Ys. I don’t think we should be doing this on the taxpayer’s dime. I think government should step aside to allow private enterprise to work within a plan (and perhaps the board is interpreting stepping aside in a different way with Valiant but that plan is way too narrow for the downtown area). The point of getting and keeping the Gen Ys is what we have doesn’t work, our kids grow up, go to school, then move away and that’s wrong (I want at least one of my kids to visit me when I’m in a nursing home).
@22: Things either grow or they die (in the case with Ann Arbor, the city will either lead its neighbors or be lead by them). I’m not sure how sustainability plays into things here (I think sustainable as a farmer grows soybeans, the beans get crushed to make bio-diesel for my car and his tractor, and he grows more beans). By new additional inputs, are you meaning new resources? Again, I think sustainability plays a part here, even with a growing population. I would rather the population of Ann Arbor grew then more people commuting in because we’ve created an island.
Comment by Joe Hood — January 6, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
Things either grow or die? What things? Are you still growing? How about your mom or Dad? Trees? Dogs? Cats? Viruses, cancers are things that grow and grow and grow. should our city follow the metastasis model of growth? Change and growth are not synonymous. Change is not in need of imperatives or direction from politicians or private companies, because change happens–seasons, the moon’s cycles, migrations, birth, death. You can take the batteries out of your clock but that doesn’t stop time from fleeing ever faster with us in its arms. So yeah, change is inevitable. I think our questions and concerns are about human projects that get imperatives attached to them. “You must change,” or “We can’t live in the past” are usually thrown about to stunt discourse. In all the fussing about the particulars of a project, the most important question is seldom asked: who gets to decide the direction and the particulars of change? As for growth, we might consider that there must be limits to how large a city can get and still be governable democratically. Some have suggested that 500K is the max. Looking at the deficits of democratic process citizens encounter in Ann Arbor (pop under 115K) I don’t see how 500 would be manageable at all. So, yes even a city has organic limits to its growth.
Our local politicians are doing a very clumsy job of directing the course of change. And they have usurped the role that properly belongs to citizens. Change/growth in Ann Arbor, or any place else, should not be controlled, lead or directed solely by government or private enterprise. Heavy handed direction brings trouble and woe, not to mention architectural atrocities. This is why I feel so strongly about citizens being the initiators of planning and zoning changes. Let communities set the parameters of growth and change. Communities are living and ever changing. When my family first moved to my street there weren’t many kids on the block. Now there are many. These kids will grow up and repeat the process. Would a city policy establishing an optimum number of kids on a block have been appropriate or beneficial in handling the dearth of kiddies? It would have been a clumsy display of hubris. My neighbors took care of it themselves.
Are we so wigged out about uncertainty that we just have to strong-arm everything to fit into our narrow conceptions of what’s correct, what’s THE way for a city to be. Before we start trying to impose imperatives or squish our city into prefab archetypes, we should look around and see what’s great and distinctive and particular about the little patch of earth we inhabit. Let’s celebrate that, enjoy it while we’re here and stop trying to play the role of zeitgeist.
Comment by Lou Glorie — January 8, 2010 @ 2:05 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by A2Politico: Happy New Year to my Twitter followers. Here’s a gift to you…have a sneak peek at tomorrow’s new post: http://www.a2politico.com/?p=2435…
Trackback by uberVU - social comments — February 1, 2010 @ 11:50 pm
[...] of as disengaged politically is not true. They cite a survey from National Conference onThe Politics of Demographics: Why All The Political Hand …Gen Yers want to live alone affordably. To begin, that $600 monthly rent is very close to what is [...]
Pingback by gen xer — March 25, 2010 @ 2:23 am
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by The Politics of Development: If You Think It’s About Urban Density and Affordable Living, Think Again « A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection — April 6, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
[...] Katie Roses out there are no great prizes, demographically. I wrote in a January 2010 entry titled “The Politics of Demgraphics: Why All the Political Hand-Wringing and Fuss Over Gen Y?”: Looking for what is called a reliable voter? Look for a white woman aged 70 and above (a Baby [...]
Pingback by The Politics of Retaining Gen Y: Why? Why? Why? « A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection — August 20, 2010 @ 8:02 am