Speechless

Wed, Jun 30, 2010 : 12:55 p.m.

"... Asked by a planning consultant to take prepared pieces of paper representing low-, medium- and high-density areas and place them over a map of downtown, the participants instead chopped up green paper and turned everything into a park...." I strongly concur with the concern being raised over this past action, and would therefore absolutely oppose — and I mean absolutely! — any attempt by the developer or other nearby homeowners to transform existing residential properties on S. Fifth Ave. into private or public parkland. A few of this neighborhood's homes, if I recall correctly, previously belonged to the Ann Arbor's now-defunct Individual Properties Historical District. It would be just terrible to see them razed to the ground in order to make way for yet more park benches, winding trails and trash receptacles. Thank you for alerting the community to a previously unforeseen possibility. If Heritage Row is Plan #A, and City Place is Plan #B, a nefarious transition to large Greenway parcel might well constitute a thus-far secret Plan #C!

Alfie

Wed, Jun 30, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.

Anybody who looks at least at minimally at the actual details of the recent downtown projects approved, should be able to realize that the projects approved for downtown are a totally different type of project. By the developers own admission, many of these projects are specifically geared to students. No question about it. What was proposed by the Heritage Row folks was much different in many ways, including the type of units(mostly one and two bedrooms) proposed. In addition,the density was only SLIGHTLY higher than the existing R4C allows. So the neighbors(and almost everyone else) hate the project that can be built under the R4C. After public meetings the developer comes back with a much different design which preserves the existing houses, puts parking underground and the neighbors STILL dont like it. Go figure! So the lesson taught to potential developers is to just get your project approved under the existing zoning and dont bother wasting the time and money to get creative, dont listen to the neighbors and dont bother minimizing impacts on the neighborhood. Just build what you can under the existing zoning. To bring it back to the main topic, maybe some kind of compromise can be worked out regarding the historic district? There can be value in these districts, however if it is really intended to preserve the nighborhood as a whole why not extend it south of Packard as requested by other neighborhood residents? These is no difference between the quality of the houses on either side of Packard. Answer: It will extend the study and the building moratorium will expire on the Heritage Row site. Conclusion: The study is being rushed specifically in order to prevent anything from being built on the Heritage Row site. The City Council has a tough decision to make on this one. Lets hope they do their homework and not just listen to a couple of neighbors campaigning to stop the development of one site.

PersonX

Wed, Jun 30, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.

Mr.Benard: The article above lays out quite clearly that 15 large development projects have been approved by Council for the downtown area, even if some of them never came to fruition, not to mention the ones that are coming up soon for approval. That hardly constitutes stagnation and the protection of a small area of near-downtown houses would do nothing to make a dent in the growth of the city. There is room for both the new and the old here. The fact is that it is not a great sense of progress that feeds the impetus to build near-downtown, but only greed, since land there is cheaper than downtown. We have more than enough development given the projected population trajectories for Ann Arbor, and note that almost everyone wants to target the same group--students. While some of them may wish to live in modern buildings, their number is not going to increase, and there are limits to their housing needs.

Vivienne Armentrout

Wed, Jun 30, 2010 : 9:42 a.m.

@Alan: thanks for the slightly back-handed compliment to my Observer article. But the Calthorpe and A2D2 studies and planning exercises involved many different voices, and were, if you like, much more "balanced" than just the views of a few elite green-loving NIMBYs. Some of us didn't even like parts of the results. But they were a real and mostly honest community effort towards consensus. And they defined downtown as the DDA boundaries and prescribed some protections for the downtown/residential interfaces. For those curious about the article to which we are referring, see http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/our-town-vs-big-city/.

Alan Benard

Wed, Jun 30, 2010 : 1:19 a.m.

@Vivienne Amentrout: All I need to know about what near-downtown NIMBYs think is from a well-remembered Observer article about long-range planning for the city center and especially city-owned properties near Allen's Creek some time ago. Asked by a planning consultant to take prepared pieces of paper representing low-, medium- and high-density areas and place them over a map of downtown, the participants instead chopped up green paper and turned everything into a park.That's swell those who already live there, especially if they want to see the city continue to stagnate. A pretty little playground for an elite few, and nothing for the students who pay for it all or the working people who make it all happen. If that's what Ann Arbor "progressives" want, fine. Just don't kid yourselves about what you are.

Vivienne Armentrout

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 8:44 p.m.

@Alan Bernard, the Central Area may look like the downtown through your telescope, but there are a number of plans and maps that clearly define this area as a near downtown neighborhood that deserves special protections. We only recently went through a couple of iterations (Calthorpe, A2D2) of public input/consultants/intensive planning and mapping exercises that drew the limits of downtown at William. Just because some people would now like to redraw that limit does not make it so. There are procedures and processes defined by our city ordinances that define zoning and other rules for each section of the city. If I and my neighbors decide that the Water Treatment Plant is the core of downtown, it doesn't make it so. @Speechless, I think that you are very articulate. Maybe you should rename yourself "Speechful".

Speechless

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.

The approval of a PUD exemption to zoning is supposed to be a rare occurrence justified only by a very unusual project offering unique benefits to the public. When reading logicnreasoning's post above, one could get the impression these exemptions are — or at least should be — handed out like lollipops to gratify the cravings of sweet-toothed developers. Zoning rules meaningfully define a city's land use and development plans. Collectively, they're like a compact made between residents and the city administration. If you're going to violate that compact, then you'd best present an awfully good reason to the public. Over time, a city will want to alter its zoning rules, but will not seek to accomplish this through making vote after vote on proposed exceptions. That's dysfunctional. But with Heritage Row, as with as some other recent local projects, we receive the tacit fiction from proponents that a PUD should always gain approval unless there exists some incredibly compelling public interest to stop it. Thus, the 'logic' and 'reasoning' originally behind the PUD approval process becomes completely turned on its head — the rare exception is now supposed to be the default general rule. To fix this bad political dynamic, a PUD ideally ought to always require a minimum of eight council votes for approval (a full two-thirds majority of all council seats), even without a neighborhood petition. Then require at least nine votes when a petition does come into play. Raising the bar like this should help return PUD proposals to appropriate status as true exceptions. "... the alleged Germantown neighborhood... From where I sit at the edge of the town, it sure looks like downtown to me." As seen from a remote trail in Waterloo Recreation Area, the edge of town looks positively urban, almost like north-central Chicago. When seen from Manhattan, however, it begins to instead resemble the Australian outback. I'm confused. Please advise.

Alan Benard

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 5:51 a.m.

"I think it doesn't serve our long-term interest in supporting downtown residential density by allowing this kind of added density in the near-downtown neighborhoods," Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward, said of his reasons for supporting a historic district.If you have to read something three times to understand it, you might be reading someone trying very, very hard to make nonsense sound sensible. If the alleged Germantown neighborhood is somewhere other than downtown, then downtown must be microscopically tiny. From where I sit at the edge of the town, it sure looks like downtown to me.

logicnreasoning

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:43 p.m.

@Vivienne Armentrout i take issue with your use of the word "favor". A PUD is an "exception" to the zoning not a "favor". The PUD is written into the law as an exception to zoning code. Definition of "favor" is a special privilege or right granted or conceded. "Favor implies that the project is not acceptable and a special privilege is being granted. It implies that the project is not allowed at all. Definition of exception is not in conformance with a general rule. The law spells out this exception therefore it is not special or granted, it is accepted or not. The exception can be completely acceptable, or more acceptable, it just is in non-conformance with the current zoning code. Therefore, a PUD is not a favor awarded by council based on the worthiness of a project, but rather it is the exception to the zoning code based on public benefits and the worthiness of the project. The council decides that the PUD is a better fit for this area based on specific benefits than a building that is built to code would be. Remember PUDs are actually a part of the zoning law, they are not considered a privilege; PUDs are allowed by law. Heritage row is the perfect example of this. Does anyone actually think that City Place (which is the building that the current code gives you) is a better project than Heritage Row?

Vivienne Armentrout

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.

@Tom Teague; I agree that Council is not the right body to decide on trends or even on the financial viability of a project, and that developers are not required to present evidence of such viability as a requirement of a development. However, since a PUD is a special "favor" awarded by council on the basis of worthiness of a project, it seems reasonable to me that such considerations as the likely success of the development and its stated goals might at least figure in. If, for example, one of the public benefits being argued is to supply affordable housing (in the broader sense), shouldn't the developer be required to make an economic case of how that can be delivered? If pure market forces are allowed to make these decisions, wouldn't the outcome be what we have with various failed projects, possibly after demolition of the area? I was, however, really addressing all the members of the public who argue passionately for this development because they perceive that a promise of such affordable, accessible housing is being extended. I'd like people to step back and consider the realities for themselves.

Tom Teague

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.

@Vivienne - With respect for your experience and insight, I worry that Council isn't the right entity to anticipate - or shape -- market trends. Without some market influence, Ann Arbor could quickly end up with a market mix that doesn't reflect the needs of the people who want/need to live and work here. Also, while I think Council has a right to do some reality testing for financing of large projects, I'm not sure it's fair to ask Mr De Parry to explain why he is able to get financing when Village Green is struggling. Maybe the question ought to be why Village Green is having difficulty arranging financing when Mr De Parry is not. If I misunderstood your points, I hope you'll correct me. And, all that said, I'm sympathetic to the idea of preservation and even to this particular historic district (even though, in this case, that evidently puts me at odds with Marvin F. whose opinions are typically in synch with my own).

saintketih

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:44 p.m.

"In reality, Ann Arbor is a mid-size college town and likely to remain so." - David Cahill In reality, David, your vision for the future, which you've so clearly stated here, is not one shared by the majority of Ann Arbor residents or business owners.

Vivienne Armentrout

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:56 a.m.

On rereading my earlier comment, my statement about "no demonstrated need for market-rate" units might have been misunderstood. I meant by market-rate, apartments renting at a profit plus the costs of new construction. That is likely to be more than $1,200 a month. In my opinion, the greatest need is for housing for people making between 60-80% of area median income (called "low income"), which is between $35,800 and $44,800 (single person) - HUD's "fair market rents" (not to exceed 30% of income) for that range is $895-1120 per month. This level of rent in new construction usually requires subsidy. Most "affordable" units now being approved for subsidy are for people with extremely low incomes instead, the typical Avalon tenant. Many housing advocates have been reluctant to subsidize people earning merely in the low income range. Housing for this income group, sometimes called "workforce" housing, is less politically acceptable. But that is the range in which many young people in entry positions fall. (Information about income levels, etc. is available from the county Community Development department, http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/community_development/plans_reports_data )

Vivienne Armentrout

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:50 a.m.

@Mick52: You are incorrect that "she apparently believes its okay for development to cater to the rich folk but not to the middle class or poor folk who cannot afford the luxury high rises." I was simply stating an opinion on the financial and market feasibility of certain types of development. Most recent developments of anything other than these high-end student developments have either stalled out for lack of financing or gone bankrupt. As I stated in a lengthy comment on the Ann Arbor Chronicle, I don't understand how Mr. de Parry can finance or afford to build a quality development that would then rent at moderate rents. Somehow many people seem to think that this development would solve the need for decent, affordable, near-downtown housing. But in my opinion it doesn't pencil out. Developers and property owners seldom wish to go to all that trouble and expense in order to subsidize housing for others. They are intending to make an income from their business. I'd welcome an explanation of the finances of the project and how it would achieve the goal of moderately priced, decent housing. Also, how it can find financing when Village Green has had so much trouble.

Mick52

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.

Sorry David, but Lorie is correct. Usually I agree with Vivienne's posts but with this one, her first paragraph is an eye opener. She apparently believes its okay for development to cater to the rich folk but not to the middle class or poor folk who cannot afford the luxury high rises. As a result, the less than wealthy are forced to live in substandard housing. Forty years ago, my friends and I during our student years, always referred to the housing adjacent to campus as the "student slums." Nothing has changed since then other than a lot more cars jammed into the yards. My daughter lived on one of these areas just a few years ago, and in the living room, when the basement lights were on you could see down there through the crack between the floor and the wall. I believe Mr. De Parry's original plan included underground parking, which would help eliminate parking congestion from the development. At least with City Place, there will be a parking lot and it will remove the ugliness off cars parking in the back yards, which is also an environmental improvement as they will not be leaking fuel and oil on the bare ground parking lots in place now. Surprising our "green" city has not required paved lots to protect the environment. So yes, there is a need to upgrade housing in these areas.

David Cahill

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:45 a.m.

Sorry, Lorie, but Ann Arbor isn't growing - it's shrinking. See Vivienne Armentrout's comment above. Yes, Ann Arbor is officially a "city", but then so is Saline. In reality, Ann Arbor is a mid-size college town and likely to remain so.

pseudo

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:04 a.m.

So far the discussion has been about preserving the houses. The article makes the point about ownership and the taking of real property. How many of you would be OK if the city decided that your house should be put into a new development zone(taking on YOUR property)? They kind of did that with the mixed signals they gave to de Parry. I've been around Ann Arbor for a long time and I am not one who likes production builders and developers. That said, there is no Germantown in Ann Arbor. This whole thing was made up with some sliver of history blown up to push off a developer. And, if you are one of the people who come to downtown...this feels like downtown, residential or not. If you were to have Ann Arbor VOTE on if this is downtown...its downtown. I am bothered by the idea that our city has given developers such mixed messages as to get them to purchase property and then shake them down after the sale. Whoops, sorry - its now a historic district so even after we turn you down, you won't be able to sell it. Same on the other side of the coin: these mixed signals have developers looking at residential blocks as possible development targets because it is so unclear what is OK and what isn't. de Parry is just one of several in the situation. My final point is this: Ann Arbor is a City and it is growing. The best way for Ann Arbor to grow - lots of studies showing this - is to grow in its center with higher density closer to the city center. That will mean that big changes will come both the official and unofficial downtown areas.

townie

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 8:53 p.m.

Instead of anonymous ramblings of disinformation from the development team and their friends, I would like to hear, using their real names, the positions on the proposed historic district from the City Council and Mayoral candidates.

Mick52

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 8:04 p.m.

This historic district folly has evolved from ridiculous to scandalous. Of course Mr. Whitaker's appointment to the supposed historic district is inappropriate. He failed in his attempt to purchase some of the properties and he lives across the street. No one in such a position should have any say, regardless of his passion of history if these facts are correct. The mere perception of unethical behavior in politics, planning and government is a serious problem. I happen to be very fond of not screwing with history and there is no historic value in these particular homes. On the last story about this issue, I posted information, sourced from Grace Shackman's book that clearly indicates that the German immigrants settled on the west side. In the comments of that story, Ryan or an editor of AA.com posted a link to some report that is supposed to support the "history" and some of it relied on text like, "...after he died, his wife moved to this house." And "..its believed he was connected to this home." Stuff like that, real historic data, huh? None of those were Mr de Parry's homes. Using historic district designation to prevent development should never be permitted, especially when there is no history. If its a historic district, it should have been done already. To designate these homes as historic will bring any Ann Arbor historic district designation into question. To use "Germantown" is insulting to the German immigrants. For more, see my post with info from Ms Shackman's book. She noted the majority of German immigrants settled on the west side. If later on some of their descendants moved to S Fifth Ave, that does not make the area historic. Oh well, perhaps only in A2 does history not matter in creating a historic district. Don't mess with history. Use facts, not speculation, be specific and use examples, lots of them. This behavior is disgusting. The first plan for these properties was by far the best. The approved the worst, and the plan preserving the houses not much better. Its so odd that City Place may end up on these lots. Well if it happens A2 deserves it. Great location for downtown living too.

Speechless

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 7:55 p.m.

To Veracity:  A project built at Fifth and William may or may not do well. If sufficiently attractive to students (and, especially, to their parents) it could succeed, as a number of them would abandon interest in the area's slumlord apartments. But if student housing is main the public benefit this project is to provide, then why not cut a deal and build it across the street on the temporary city parking lot where the "Y" once stood? More generally, just get it out of the historic residential neighborhood below William and move it someplace else where it more appropriately belongs. To David Cahill:  You are being tweaked again by Mr. Face. (Unless, by small chance, it's you who actually knows Marvin, in which case you're both tweaking de Parry!) That said, tough talk about spontaneous demolition does offer a strong metaphor for the dimming likelihood of either Heritage Row or City Place being built. (Unless... hmmm... did a rogue-ish demolition happen years ago to the large, older home near on Hill St. near Washtenaw that originally hosted The Ark?)

Vivienne Armentrout

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 7:38 p.m.

"Veracity" does indeed speak the truth. There is no demonstrated need for new (market-rate) rental units in Ann Arbor - unless, perhaps, they are high-end student rentals. Places like the recently approved Zaragon 2 should absorb those nicely. According to the most recent population estimate, Ann Arbor actually lost about 2,000 residents between 2000 and 2009 (this is not the result of the 2010 census, but an interim estimate). With regard to the value of those historic structures: it is to the benefit of the entire city to keep as many of these charming buildings that define the character of our city as possible. That particular neighborhood is in the process of a renaissance and I believe that in a few years it will be like another Old West Side, where tourists stroll to catch the ambiance. Even as a neighborhood of mixed owner-occupied and rentals, it has considerable value to the city. Studies have shown that the demographic that we are presumably trying to attract (young upwardly mobile extremely talented professionals likely to start up innovative new companies) prefer localities that have quality of life indicators, including historic neighborhoods. Today's New York Times has a remarkable discussion of this by Richard Florida. You recall that he is the prophet of the "death of the suburbs", etc. who has promulgated much of the vision of how the "young talent" will locate itself. Here is what he says smaller communities must have in order to attract them: "All successful revitalization efforts focus on upgrading existing local assets developing better ties among colleges, universities and communities, strengthening business districts, upgrading parks and open spaces, preserving and reusing old buildings and supporting local art and music. SUCH communities are rich in resources for working, learning and simply enjoying life. They are places where people can prosper in their careers while achieving higher levels of well-being. " Did you see that bit about preserving and reusing old buildings?

1ofalpha

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 7:08 p.m.

Well, well, well. I see we have yet another group ready to demolish, rather than preserve, what has given Ann Arbor (part of) its character. I'm certain those fun loving inbreds wouldn't mind putting up any kind of modern structures to warehouse people--as long as a buck is made under the principle of "He/she who has the money rules." This is utterly disgusting, and especially so in a theoretically educated community. Cut bate with de Parry, send him packing like a frog and invest in another vertical strip mall elsewhere.

MB111

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 6:36 p.m.

Veracity, As the supply of housing increases - then if demand is static, housing will become more affordable. Isn't this a core value in the City?? Additionally, neighborhoods like "Germantown" will be able to convert their "historic, chopped up rentals to single family residences. Doesn't this help real neighborhoods? Furthermore, it is not up to the City or residents to assess the demand. If developers are willing to risk their capital, its their problem.

Veracity

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 5:33 p.m.

Mr. Stanton has included in his article a listing of 15 high-rise residential buildings approved for construction since 2000. He did not list the total number of occupants if all of the buildings are eventually constructed. Apparently, developers. the DDA and City Council does not expect that Ann Arbor will ever be saturated with residential housing, even in a sustained recession. Already several high rise buildings are economic failures including most recently Ashley Terrace. For an interesting perspective on the Ashley Terrace foreclosure read Paula Gardner's article, entitled "Lender foreclosing on Ann Arbor's Ashley Terrace high rise; $20 million owed," which appeared in the May 6th edition of the annarbor.com http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/lender-foreclosing-on-ann-arbors-ashley-terrace-high-rise-20-million-owed/

Veracity

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 5:15 p.m.

Is everyone aware that a demand for new rental units has not been established? Studies predict that Ann Arbor will experience only a 1% growth rate in the next ten years,or an average of 100 new residents per year. In case anyone has forgotten we are in a recession and the new job industry is in the doldrums even in Ann Arbor. And a overhang of available rental units exists. All this being considered, Heritage Row Apartments will likely fail economically if constructed. The proposed housing will be unattractive to potential renters on an aesthetic basis as well as comparatively expensive. When it goes bankrupt Heritage Row Apartments will not provide any benefit to the city financially and will exist as a white elephant in the neighborhood.

David Cahill

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 4:26 p.m.

So - de Parry knows how to contact you, eh? Funny that you're not in the phone book. I am.

Marvin Face

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 4 p.m.

Mr "Cahill", I am using my real name and always have, thank you. Kindly start using yours, please. Mr de Parry knows how to contact me. I will add that I am willing to pay for an entire battery of ambulance-chasers to defend him post demo as well.

David Cahill

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 3:44 p.m.

Gee, "Marvin", since you're using a screen name there is no way Mr. de Parry can reach you. If you were using your real name, then who knows what fun you two might have. 8-)

Marvin Face

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 1:27 p.m.

Mr. de Parry, I know there is a moratorium on demolition in this area but if you demolish all your buildings in the So WiNy (South of William, North of the (lumber) Yards) neighborhood tomorrow, I will gladly pay any and all fines levied against you. Call me.

PersonX

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.

In response to MN111: The process is one that is determined by law; indeed most recent regulations of this type in Michigan come from Republicans. As for the membership of the committee, as far as I can determine it had a fairly wide representation, and was hardly "stocked." In any case, as I understand it, the committee only makes a recommendation and our elected representatives vote on it. The important thing to realize that from everything we know, in this case most if not all homeowners who actually live in the proposed district are strongly in favor of making it historic, and the very developer who is now arguing against it was instrumental in getting some of the 5th Ave. houses designated as historic in the previous round....

Rod Johnson

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 12:55 p.m.

Those pictures are shocking. Do you see the crazy angles those houses are at? They're a hazard! I'm surprised they haven't already fallen down.

rusty shackelford

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 12:17 p.m.

What nobody, least of all Carston seems to understand is that de Parry already has the right to build a structure much less to the opposition's liking. Maybe, given that fact, they should have approved the project that would have kept the character of the neighborhood mostly in tact. I don't like A or B. But I like B better. So I'll reject B so we can default to A. Nice logic. De Parry spent a lot of money trying to accommodate all of your concerns and you rejected it anyway. So now you'll get the worst case scenario. Way to look out for the best interest of your constituents. Oh, and now we have to waste money on a lawsuit to boot. Thanks, I think we've got a big pile of money lying around somewhere, right? We weren't going to use that for anything.

5c0++ H4d13y

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 12:09 p.m.

If I understand correctly de Parry already played by the rules (aka zoning laws) and has an approved project. If the residents of "Germantown" didn't want that type of development they should have said something before the zoning was established. Now the residents want to use a legal maneuver to thwart a development that complies with the zoning.

Me Next

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : noon

Due to the evidence of the past, multiplex dwellings increase the Need for City Services. The City has the duty/authority/Power to increase tax on the owner of Rental Property in that Zone. City can take into account the devaluation of current property values by construction & raise construction Public Costs as building Fees. Apparently the Owner has enough money to waste destroying livable homes & therefore must be able to compensate the City for the real loss that multiplex dwellings bring. Doesn't matter "young professionals" will be there - they will require City Services the same as impoverished areas. Also single dwellings tax can be reduced as they lose property value. A homestead is Constitutional Law not a Right to impose a lifestyle on Homesteaders that lose real property value & their persuit of happiness.

MB111

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.

PersonX, The entire committee process is disingenuous. Create a committee to determine if a historic district is appropriate, stock the committee with preservstionists and on-record neighbors who oppose the project and you have a pre-determined outcome. This is akin to placing foxes in the hen-house. The fact that the council, after establishing and populating the committee, now must vote on its "study", only strengthen's the developers assertions that it is designed to stop his already approved project.

pooh bear

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 11:45 a.m.

something seems really fishy with this. If Mr. DeParry really intends to restore the houses according to the rules, then why object to being in a district? If he's in a district then he gets the added 25% tax credit! He probably will not "do the right thing" and thus this delaying tactic, which will probably buy him time to raise capital.

Rasputin

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 10:29 a.m.

No disrespect to Mr. Alex de Parry, but in this case the city will win and he will simply waste a lot of money. The past oversight of NOT declaring the old German neighborhood a historic district is now finally being corrected. The neighborhood has some truly stunning examples of Victorian and turn-of-the-last-century architecture. Heritage Row Apartments project were defeated soundly and for very clear reasons. Mr. Alex de Parry, instead of spending your money on lawyers, please look elsewhere, like Detroit.

A Pretty Ann Arbor

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 10:28 a.m.

AGH - This project is NOT - I REPEAT - NOT Downtown - Why build inthe surrounding NEAR DOWNTOWN neighborhoods. As much as you may not like it this is NOT Downtonw.

PersonX

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.

in response to MB... Much of this was discussed in detail on the AA Chronicle web site and it is rather clear that there is no conflict of interest, nor is it unusual to designate boundaries in the manner in which this was done. After all, this is what the City Council asked the committee to do; if there is interest in expanding it, that has to be done AFTER the current report is accepted. If it is not accepted, there can be no doubt that this will be the end of it and there will be no chance for any historic district at all. Those who wish to see the district expanded should think seriously about this should reflect on the poitical reality of the situation. As to the idea that "progressives" like this or that; this is the kind of silly argumentation that the internet seems to breed. Who knows what the political orientation of all the people who support the historic district might be? Add to that the absurdity of the idea that unnecessary development that runs counter to current zoning is "progress" and we have an argument that in a different media would be called a waste of paper. Mr. Cahill has presented a rational narrative that demonstrates well that the legal challenge to the current report is not to be taken too seriously, and one can only hope that rationality will prevail: the district will be approved and possibly a study committee will be set up to investigate expanding it. Larger city interests will hopefully prevail, because zoning is a serious public business and cannot be simply thrown away to satisfy individual developers needs.

MB111

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.

It is clear and obvious that Whittaker has a conflict of interest. It is also clear that the district is designed only to stop DeParry. If it were a legitmate district, the boundries would be expanded. This episode is a perfect example of how the fear of change impacts self described "progressives" - we like progress, just not here.

InsideTheHall

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.

It's a shame that narrow self interests are abusing the designation of Historical District. This diminishes those Districts that are historical and meant to be preserved and maintained. Protecting 100 year old row houses is a big big stretch.

gsorter

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.

Regular Joe, I live near the Rock, and there are already 200 plus student houses here, not a problem. And you are correct, if I own my land, pay my mortgage, and taxes, and have a project that fits with the goals of the city (more density) I see no reason why someone can deny me that right.

regularjoe

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 7:55 a.m.

According to your reasoning, as long as I have enough money I can do whatever I want. Where do you live? Because I want to buy your house and those around it and build myself 200 units of student housing but I will call them "housing for young professionals". Sure, it doesn't fit the zoning and goes against anything that reasonable people would want there but if I have enough money I can strong arm, intimidate, and threaten my way through the process.

1ofalpha

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 7:25 a.m.

Thank goodness there are legal grounds to stop developers from yet another butchering in Ann Arbor. Let Alex de Parry take his chump change elsewhere--preferably another country.

David Cahill

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 6:57 a.m.

The arguments DeParry's lawyer is making against historic districts are routinely made by developers' lawyers - and routinely rejected. The courts have repeatedly said that historic districts do not involve "takings" for which property owners are entitled to compensation. Historic districts are well-established legally. Also, people should know that once a historic district is established, there is a big state subsidy for "rehabilitation" of properties within the district. This subsidy is one of the Granholm Administration's jobs programs. If you own a such a property, you are entitled to a 25% credit (not just a deduction) against your state income tax for the cost of a rehabilitation project, as long as that cost is at least 10% of the property's State Equalized Valuation (SEV). "Rehabilition" includes such mundane, and expensive, things as replacing a roof or replacing a furnace. Plus, two or more such rehabs can be combined to satisfy the 10% requirement. This tax credit is a significant tool for economic development and provides jobs for those in the construction industry. Some have said that the properties within the proposed district could use some fixing up. A historic district would encourage property owners to do just that.

A2Dave

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 6:44 a.m.

Sure XMO, and Ann Arbor can just be another Livonia or Troy. Enjoy!

xmo

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 6:33 a.m.

The city needs to set the zoning/building criteria for the area, if a developer has the money and meets the building criteria let them build. Less government and more free market, PLEASE!

Somewhat Concerned

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 : 6:10 a.m.

Thanks de Parry, for showing your true concern for A2. Lose, then use your wealth to hire lawyers to pummel the city into letting you make more money your way. Then you will be even more powerful and can pummel the rest of us even harder. I guess we always will be at the mercy of developers who can make more money by changing the density of housing. No wonder neighbors don't trust developers.