Ann Arbor committee may give eliminated open space proposals for Library Lot another look
Ann Arbor resident Alan Haber, who submitted a proposal for open space on the Library Lot, criticized city officials Monday night for the handling of the RFP process.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The message sent to the Ann Arbor City Council Monday night was loud and clear: Public land demands a public process.
A small group of citizens attended the council's first meeting of the year to protest a decision by a council-appointed advisory committee that eliminated two of the six proposals for the Library Lot downtown.
Residents are complaining that two open space proposals were ruled out before they were given fair consideration. And they say it appears the fix is in for a hotel and conference center project.
Although the council rejected a resolution brought Monday by Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, for those groups to submit all relevant financial information, it appears the two scrapped proposals may get another look by the committee.
"The use of the Library Lot is a matter of great importance for our entire community," said resident Jack Eaton, an attorney and local political activist. "I hope that you agree that such an important decision requires full consideration and fact-finding and a full sense of public participation in the process before decisions are made."
Eaton is part of a group of 12 citizens that sent a four-page position statement to the mayor and council members on Sunday, asking the City Council to reinstate the two open space proposals.
Jack Eaton, leader of a group of residents calling for reinstatement of the two open space proposals for the Library Lot, addresses council members.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The city recently received six responses to a request for proposals for the city-owned site at 319 S. Fifth Ave., where an underground parking garage is being built. Two proposals for what goes on top had offered open space concepts. But now three of the four remaining proposals include some type of hotel project, while the fourth calls for senior housing.
The RFP advisory committee eliminated the Ann Arbor Community Commons and the Ann Arbor Town Square proposals from further consideration, saying they don't offer a financial return to the city, a requirement of the RFP.
The City Council voted 7-4 against Briere's resolution, which asked backers of the proposals rejected by the RFP advisory committee to submit all relevant financial data about their projects to the City Council so it would have equivalent information about all six proposals.
Only Mike Anglin, Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman agreed with Briere's resolution. Others said they thought it undermined the work of the committee, which will make a recommendation to council in March.
At the start of Monday's meeting, Mayor John Hieftje said he had spoken with Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, and Margie Teall, D-4th Ward, the two council representatives on the RFP advisory committee. Hieftje said they agreed that although the two proposals may not have met all the criteria of the RFP, they wouldn't be adverse to giving them the same 90-minute public hearing time being afforded to the other proposals. Hieftje said the committee meets on Friday and may consider that as an option.
Rapundalo said the advisory committee is following the best practices for RFP processes, and if it has made any mistakes thus far, it has been not clearly articulating to the community how the process will work.
The City Council took up a resolution brought by Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, that asks backers of the two open space proposals for more information.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Rapundalo said the city predetermined some type of building would go on top of the Library Lot, and that's why the city directed the Downtown Development Authority to make sure the steel beams were strong enough to support a large vertical structure. He also said the city went on the record early on to say open space - while perhaps one component - can't be the only feature on the site.
Rapundalo indicated the city might not even go with one of the four remaining proposals as they currently exist. He said it could end up being a combination of ideas that evolve from the various proposals.
Council Member Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, noted his opposition to another hotel project in Ann Arbor. He said current occupancy rates don't demand it, and he fears it would just put someone else out of business.
"We certainly have hotels," Anglin said. "I do think it's time now that we look at a commons area, a place we can be proud of as a town ... I think someone building a hotel is not very novel at all."
Eaton's group claims the Library Lot is in the midst of an area of downtown that is undergoing transformation, and the best use for the site should come as a result of an area planning process. But residents in his group believe the RFP process has been engineered for a particular outcome - a hotel and conference center idea that City Administrator Roger Fraser presented to the City Council about a year ago.
Among complaints laid out by Eaton's group is there is no clear definition of what constitutes a "financial return for the city" to rule out the open space proposals while leaving the hotel and conference center idea on the table. Residents argue a hotel and conference center project calling for a public-private investment would cost the city money, while the open space proposals could pay for themselves.
"One of the (open space) proposals actually offered $2.5 million 'or more' to the city as a free gift and off-hand statements were made that it 'wasn’t enough.' There was no analysis made to support that statement," the group's letter to council reads. "There are studies and documentation available showing that open space in a downtown area does have concrete financial benefits, but there was no opportunity to make this case or to defend the financial benefit offered."
Ann Arbor resident Libby Hunter serenaded the City Council at its meeting Monday night with a heavy criticism of the RFP process in melodic fashion. She received applause from the audience for her song, "Ode to the Conference Center," sung to the tune of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy."
Conference center we adore ye Grand white elephant of our eye We borrowed money to afford ye You are the apple of our eye Taxpayers get losses so developers get profits And we'll throw in tax subsidies galore Who needs police and fire protection When you have a white elephant to adore
The fix was in from the beginning Secret meetings, secret deals Someone's getting a million dollars We poor taxpayers will get burned We are led like lambs to the slaughter By eight council members drunk with power They care not if our yoke is heavy As long as they get their shining tower
Ann Arbor resident Alan Haber, one of the leaders of a grassroots group of citizens who submitted the community commons proposals for the Library Lot, spoke out about his concerns with the RFP process.
"I don't think due diligence was really done on either of the proposals for open space," Haber said. "I hope you will read them, particularly the proposal on the commons. A lot of people put creative energy into that."
Haber said it's ultimately the City Council's decision whether the lot contains some kind of green space in the center of downtown or another commercial building. But he thinks it should be a space for community gathering.
"The commons is a place that belongs to all the people," Haber said. "There's other space in Ann Arbor for a hotel, the conference center - for all the things that can bring more density."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
beadzoz
Fri, May 14, 2010 : 7:25 p.m.
not so IM paul jensen and love courthouse sq apartments white elephant or not
a2jean
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 2:45 p.m.
p.s. if the city has wifi, swap dad's newspaper for a laptop :-)
a2jean
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 2:43 p.m.
A park on this site would enable downtown workers to eat lunch outside - for free if they brown-bag it. A dad could sit there reading a paper while junior is taking his guitar lesson at Herb David. Or they could play catch while mom and sis are checking out library books. (Sorry, don't mean to get all 1950s on you...) This space could be the new site of Top of the Park. It's bit of a hike to the Power Center, but maybe some entertainers could come to the new park, which would offer lawn seating and concessions. Weary Art Fair patrons could rest on the grass in the shade of a tree. It's currently a long asphalt stretch between the Diag and Main Street -- and there's no green space near Main. Sitting on the concrete sidewalk planters is not relaxing with so many people milling around. People would post photos of the park through the seasons on Flickr and Facebook (doubt they'd do that with a hotel), as one more cool A2 landmark. How to pay? I'm not an expert on these things, but wonder if donations could be solicited. "Buy a brick (tree/bench/planting/lawn tractor)". The Dahlmans impress me as exceptionally generous, with their $250,000 offer -- wouldn't we be foolish to throw that away? Maybe there are grants to be had. Or maybe have a "friends of the park" membership, like they do for the Arb. Maybe master gardeners or gardening classes would be willing to donate time. Yes, this is a 100-year opportunity. I may be wrong but I really don't see the city reaping torrents of money from a hotel/convention center. And if this hotel -- or one of the existing downtown hotels -- goes belly-up, then we REALLY have problems (and costs... and lost revenue). No more money torrents. Worst case scenario: if at some point in the future the city council says, "Hey, this park-thing is not working out -- let's build on it" -- they could still do so. There is no absolute, iron-clad guarantee of long-term revenue from any of these proposals. But the downtown residents and other locals would certainly benefit from a green space.
Michael Harman
Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.
From: Michael Harman. General Manager Campus Inn January 8, 2010 Response to Mike Ds January 6th Post: Following are recently received comments from several Campus Inn guests: We are season ticket holders to University of Michigan football games. We choose to stay for the games at The Dahlmann Campus Inn for many reasons: STAFF are exceptional; ROOMS are beautiful; LOCATION cannot be beat; the TEAM can be seen departing there to go to the stadium. The hotel is elegant; the pianist's music is delightful; and we always feel like the staff is very, very happy to be working there. Restaurant is excellent. Artist 55, Oakland Co., MI 11/30/09 The Dahlmann Campus Inn is just about as good as it gets! Upon arriving, we were greeted at the entrance by friendly, helpful attendants who unloaded our car and directed us to the check in desk where courteous personnel professionally registered us and directed us to our beautifully appointed rooms. Service was exquisite throughout our stay. The meals were excellent in both the breakfast area and the lovely dining area...well above normal hotel fare. Overall, convenient location, excellent friendly service, well appointed rooms, and an outstanding experience make this the best hotel in the Ann Arbor area. Roger and Linda F. Annapolis, MYD 12/15/09 We have conducted executive education programs in the finest hotels worldwide in cities as diverse as London, Hong Kong, Madrid, Istanbul, Munich and Singapore. In Michigan, we conduct our programs five times a year at the Campus Inn, which has proven itself to be an excellent facility and operation every time. It is among the select few hotels in the world that we consider to be the very best." Frank P., Ph.D. President The G. S. Consulting Group The Campus Inns challenge is not with the quality of its facilities or its guest services. It is with its occupancy, which hovers around 50% or less year after year. There are simply too many hotel rooms in Ann Arbor.
crowcat
Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 10:15 a.m.
How about a green commons that is surrounded by cafes, where food vendors with carts are allowed and street musicians and performers are permitted to play and perform? How about having an open market day, or two, there where people can sell their products and the community can meet and enjoy the scene? Create an active, vibrant place that the community cares about and that yes, makes money for small business entrepreneurs.
crowcat
Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 10:11 a.m.
How about a green commons that is surrounded by cafes, where food vendors with carts are allowed and street musicians and performers are permitted to play and perform? How about having an open market day, or two, there where people can sell their products and the community can meet and enjoy the scene? Create an active, vibrant place that the community cares about and that yes, makes money for small business entrepreneurs.
Lokalisierung
Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 7:24 p.m.
"And there is no proposal to put a corn field in downtown Ann Arbor. A park with grass and park benches is not synonymous with a farm. They are completely different things so again, that makes no sense" Right becasue Farms are on tax roles and produce good and monies...not take more money from taxpayers. "Must suck to live around all those parks. Where's that? Scio Twsp? Let's pave all of your parks that you dread so much so we can have one downtown." I don't imagine Atticus thinks it sucks at all, i'm sure they enjoy it like we all do. But speaking against adding more parks does not subtract from parks as euate it. As you sit here and tell other people they make no sense.
Grumpy
Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 6:25 p.m.
Atticus. Take a drive over to Plymouth and then tell me what a disaster their town square is.
Grumpy
Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 6:24 p.m.
Atticus. It makes perfect financial sense. That land is not the most valuable land in Ann Arbor. But if they put a park there, it will make all property surrounding it the most valuable property in Ann Arbor. Let's take your example of Chicago. Their most valuable property is lakefront property. They have at least three amazing parks on lakefront property. Grant, Lincoln, and the new Millennium. The property adjacent to Grant and Millennium, which was already the most valuable in Chicago because of Michigan Avenue, became even more valuable after Millennium was built. Similar to how some of the most valuable real estate in New York City is Park Block. That is the one block perimeter surrounding Central Park. You are comparing a flat parking lot in Ann Arbor with a $700 million skyscraper? That doesn't make any sense. And there is no proposal to put a corn field in downtown Ann Arbor. A park with grass and park benches is not synonymous with a farm. They are completely different things so again, that makes no sense. You can't sit on a bench and read the paper or ice skate in a cornfield. Would you suggest the city of Chicago build $700 million skyscrapers over their world class parks and move their parks to Gary and Hammond Indiana? Would you suggest plowing under New York's Central Park and moving it across the river to New Jersey?
Atticus F.
Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 5:33 p.m.
Grumpy, In my oppinion, it makes no financial sense to take the most valuable space in A2 and put a park in... That would be like tearing down a $700million sky scraper in downtown chicago, in order to build a 1 acre farm...It's much more cost effective to farm in Indiana, and ship to chicago. I just dont think the downtown area is a viable place for a park.
Grumpy
Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.
Must suck to live around all those parks. Where's that? Scio Twsp? Let's pave all of your parks that you dread so much so we can have one downtown. Name one park within the borders of Ashley, William, State, and Huron. Heck let's throw Kerrytown in there too. And don't tell me the 100ft x 100ft concrete hole in the ground known as Liberty PLAZA. A plaza is not a park. A park has grass and park benches. Point me to a single blade of grass that is growing downtown. For the life of me, I can't figure out where all of these parks are that everyone keeps complaining about. And if homeless people are the issue, how is it that other cities and towns are able to have urban parks, but not Ann Arbor?
Atticus F.
Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 3:58 p.m.
I love living in A2, but I feel like we pay too much in taxes in order to fund a park on every city street in A2. Where I live, I have 4 parks within 1/4 mile from my home, and about 15-20 within a mile. It's also important to remember that 20+ years ago, this area used to be the worst area of A2...Does anybody remember Capitol Market? or the massage parlor on 4th AVE?...The only remenant of this time is the Embassy Hotel. I personaly wouldn't mind reverting this neighborhood to the way it was 25 years ago, as it would remind me of the red light district in Amsterdam, and bring a slice of life that A2 hasn't seen for some time... But I would forewarn any westside NIMBY that if you desire a park in this area, to be careful of what you wish for, as it will certainly be a basecamp for the homeless.
a2jean
Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 1:51 p.m.
ThickCandyShell: You don't need to patronize. I'm aware of the hoops the Ashley Mews developers had to jump through to build. Back then, someone in city government advocated for affordable housing downtown and made this a requirement. I will always be grateful to them for my condo. For a middle-income person like me, living downtown would have otherwise been far beyond reach. But someone(s) thought outside the Profits-First box. Before Ashley Mews went up, there was an old, regrettably run-down house and an open lot on the site. If a park had been put in instead of the Mews, it would have been fine, but I would have had to find somewhere else (probably on the edge of town) to live. Downtown should not be the exclusive domain of the wealthy and transient. Born-and-Raised: Yup, I've walked this block many times, day-and-night, in my 11 years here. It's scary because it lacks foot traffic. If Liberty Plaza could somehow be integrated into the plan, so that we had a "townie diag" between Liberty/Division and Fifth/William, I think the more shadowy elements would migrate elsewhere, at least during daylight. Why should we, the tax-paying citizens of A2, surrender any plot of land to them? And if one assumes a hotel would be crime-free, thefts, vandalism, and prostitution would most definitely happen there. In Ashley Mews we've had several instances of vandalism, thefts, and a host of shady (or just plain drunk) loiterers. No place -- however nice -- is crime-free. Voiceofreason: Silly -- you're assuming I stand to gain from downtown parking myself. Nope! I don't own a car :-)
voiceofreason
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 8:51 p.m.
A2jean, Not enough parking spots for downtown residents? I honestly hope you don't plan on driving the three blocks from Ashley Mews to the Library Lot. It's not like we are dealing with the last undeveloped parcel of downtown real estate here.
AAbornandraised
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 6:45 p.m.
As one who walked this block for 20 years I would ask a2jean is she has ever walked this block at night? This is a block that is frequented by people with way too much time on their hands. I often found myself very glad to see a police officer in the area as I walked DURING THE DAY as I was uncomfortable with some of the people I would pass. I, for one, would be very careful about putting a park here for fear of who would use it or loiter there. Plus the city doesn't have money NOW to maintain the parks they already have. Just look around at those throughout the city. And now there is a desire to add yet another one. Please tell us where you think this park maintenance money will come from?
Lokalisierung
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 6:36 p.m.
I agree. You've already got such a huge chunk of non taxable land here we need some income...since most people are tricked into thinking a city income tax is the second coming of Lucifer. The city as a whole gets a little too greedy when it comes to development & land. They want to collect everything and for it to be the exact way they think it should be. Even if a building meets the requirments sometimes the planning commission is still against it. Let';s gobble up all this green space around the town so no one can develop it. If we buy B&O Railroad now we'll stop 'them' from buy Reading Railroad later.
Thick Candy Shell
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 6:23 p.m.
Well, it is nice that A2Jean is so outspoken and happy that she lives in "downtown". When her development was proposed and went through the process these same anti development folks opposed it also. No one can grasp the fact that Ann Arbor needs a larger tax base. We need to stop turning land into non tax areas. Sell a few parks and let them be developed. the sale is nothing...... the tax revenue is everything!
Grumpy
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 5:18 p.m.
http://www.annarbor.com/community/community_wall/dont_screw_this_up/
voiceofreason
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 4:18 p.m.
While not the best option in my opinion, economic concerns about a hotel do not hold much weight. The parking structure will not be completed until 2011/2012, and it would take at least another year until to build any hotel. If the economy in this area is not at the point where another hotel can be supported by 2014, we might as well give up on the whole "economic development" gig.
Freemind42
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 3:54 p.m.
Why don't we just turn it into more commercial space? there can be a building that holds store fronts on the ground level and condos up above.
a2jean
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.
As a downtown resident (Ashley Mews, S. Main at Packard), I would CHERISH more green space. I doubt our tax money is best spent on a concrete hutch for visitors, and the environmental impact would be considerable. And where would these visitors park -- in the new parking garage? That would considerably decrease the spaces available for residents wanting to enjoy THEIR downtown, wouldn't it? I do not appreciate the snarky comments from people bound-and-determined to build a hotel/convention center. What's your interest? Do YOU live downtown? And why so vehement ("give it up, treehuggers", etc.)? On this page I have not yet read a persuasive and well-reasoned comment as to why a hotel/convention center is the way to go. Current hotels not modern enough? Build another one, then -- sap their revenues so they won't ever be able to update, and maybe they'll fold. No, we don't want that. This parcel's proximity to the transit center and library is ideal. Atnaap, the library is open until 9pm weeknights, and buses run until nearly 11pm, so this is not a "dead zone" in the evening. I understand we're short on police, fire, etc., but wonder if citizen patrols could help fill the void. Foot traffic and adequate lighting would help ensure safety. I do like the idea of senior housing downtown. Ann Arbor is very walkable, and to provide our elders easy access to the library, restaurants, and stores would be a real boon to them and this town. It might be possible to set up a partnership with UM for mentoring students, or to initiate an "adopt a grandparent" program for young people living far from loved ones. I understand there are plans to demolish and renovate the Blake Transit Center. Ann Arbor has a great bus system, and with something nice to see when one gets off the bus downtown (new transit center, library, park), it could really give this town a boost. I'll finish by expressing my gratitude to Sabra, Mike, and the others for not rubber-stamping what some loud voices consider the best way to go. In this economy, many residents are so concerned for their jobs and mortgages, they don't have anything left for active participation in civic matters like this. But what happens to this parcel of land DOES matter to residents, and we rely on our leaders for their vision and strength to do what is best for the people who live in A2 -- and love it.
Dalouie
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.
The Mayor spoke at our club luncheon a few weeks ago and in response to a question said he wanted a park on the site but it should go along with a tax paying development. He stressed a residential use to have more people living downtown. I remember he was skeptical that a conference center would work and did not want the city to subsidize but would consider a hotel with a big enough space for large meetings if the owners would buy the site outright and had the ability to finish the project. He said if none of the proposals were strong enough to win in this round the city could do this again in a year or two as the economy improves.
Lokalisierung
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 12:48 p.m.
With all respect to the staff and their history lesson on political ballads, they just aren't that good. It was funny/entertaining/ionteresting/attention getting the first couple times, no it's just a bore. I'm worried about a hotel myself with the way the industry is going. But another park come on, literally the worst place for a park. Right across from a bus station with loud buses stoppping, starting, engine running all day and exhaust spewing out.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 12:44 p.m.
I'm still in favor of a liberal and conservative free zone instead of the other 6 proposals. A campground might be nice too. Nothing like city camping.
a2grateful
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 11:24 a.m.
And now, the RFP advisory board is honored to unveil the winning project: the Hieftje Conference Center, commemorated with a $1 mil statue of the mayor, city council, and the dda, out front. Never mind that the US hotel industry is in a precarious position. The default rate (60 days delinquent or in foreclosure) of commercial-mortgage-backed securities for hotel properties has increased ten-fold from a year ago. There is a hotel supply-demand disconnect, with declines in occupancy and average daily rates, and record declines in NOI. Hotel bankruptcies have already begun. Look at Detroit, for example. There will be tremendous opportunities for investors to acquire properties for pennies on the dollar. And in the berg of insanity known as Ann Arbor City government, they entertain hotel and conference center proposals. Who is surprised?
Kathleen Kosobud
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.
I'm a bit skeptical about a proposal to build a hotel/conference center in that space. As I recall, what is now Courthouse Square was built to serve that need and ended up being a huge white elephant--did not generate the business that it was supposed to, fell into disrepair, changed hands several times, etc. Is there any unbiased analysis to show that this time, the outcome would be different? I'm all for building something on the site, but would like to see some evidence that it serves a public good, and has a reasonable potential for generating revenue, beyond whatever the developers make in creating another edifice in the downtown area.
theodynus
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 10:39 a.m.
A downtown park can be a great thing, but only when it's smack dab in the middle of the most vibrant part of the city. Right now, this is a dead zone in the evening. It has several strikes against it by being so close to the transit center, liberty plaza, the deadest blocks of E. Liberty in the evening, a couple of huge daytime-only functions (library, post office) and being right on the line between housing and the downtown. You DO NOT want to create a big open space for drunks to hang out in, and a natural spot for panhandling/harassing/mugging pedestrians coming and going from the deck. Even using it VERY intensively, it's going to be hard to generate enough activity to bring that area to life after hours. It's stupid to make the border vacuum there any larger by creating more space that won't get used after 6:00 pm. It's easy to be wowed by pretty pictures of lots of green trees and open space. Who wouldn't want that as part of their downtown? The reality ain't going to be some sort of idyllic place for happy children to romp in while their parents sip lattes and soak up some nature. Any space in that area that that feels separated off from the street is going to be pretty unpleasant or dangerous in the evening.
townie
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 10:01 a.m.
The RFP did not define what a "financial return" was. Was it in the form of economic development downtown or direct tax revenue? The conference center/hotel proposers admitted in their response that conference centers do not cover their debt. Both conference centers as well as the other proposals expect the City to invest in the form of tax abatements, special lease deals, assumption of financial risk, and/or worst of all, issuance of bonds (debt) by the city to cover much of the cost of construction. This whole process is fundamentally flawed and needs to be scrapped (along with most of our current councilmembers). Those who fear thousands of dollars in annual maintenance costs for a park-type space should be more concerned about millions of taxpayer debt and financial obligations to cover the backs of the out-of-town developers of the other proposals. The only way these carpet-baggers can make money on a conference center/hotel in this City is if Ann Arbor taxpayers pay for most of it up front and assume all the financial risk of its success. Banks won't give them money for their ideas because without heavy public subsidies and assumption of risk, they are money losers. No thanks. Hate to ruin Mr. Rapundalo's fairy tale, but we, the owners of this property never agreed that we should have a building on this site. Hell, we never agreed that we should have a parking structure on this site! But apparently Mr Rapundalo and his buddies at SPARK, the DDA, the Chamber, and City Council all know what's best for us, huh?
Awakened
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.
By all means create something to be maintained with tax dollars instead of a property that pays taxes. Just get rid of a few more cops, firefighters or snowplows.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.
After you've read the story, give the three letters in the "More Info" box a read. They offer more details from Alan Haber and his group's arguments.
Mike D.
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.
As someone who entertains out-of-town colleagues, vendors, and clients, I am thrilled at the prospect of another hotel in downtown Ann Arbor. The two Dahlmann hotels are old and lack modern amenities. Try explaining 1985 bedspreads and no tubs to someone who's heard about how cool Ann Arbor is. Even Holiday Inns got duvet covers years ago. Monopoly necessarily breeds complacency, and one look at a room at the Campus Inn or Bell Tower proves it. The Council is smart to push for a place to bring visitors and meeting business downtown. We have the shopping, restaurants, and yes parks, but we need reasonable accommodations downtown.
DagnyJ
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 7:17 a.m.
You have got to be kidding. You mean we're going to serve up parks and soak the taxpayers to for money to build courthouses and waterworks art. @InsideTheHall, you said it. This guy is driving the council's decisions. That's scary.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 7:01 a.m.
Jayne Miller, the city's Community Services Area administrator, sent out a memo Dec. 18 that discussed RFP Site Development Objectives. In it she stated: "All six proposals meet the objective of being a beneficial use of the site, however, further analysis of and details for each proposal are needed to fully assess the proposals against the recommendations of the Downtown Plan and the A2D2 initiative as well as to understand how the public space identified in each proposal functions. All six proposals incorporate environmental features, however, further analysis and details are needed to better understand the environmental features of each proposal. Finally, all but two of the proposals meet the financial return objective as stipulated in the RFP. The Ann Arbor Town Square and Ann Arbor Community Commons proposals do not meet the financial return objective. The Ann Arbor Town Square proposal has agreed to donate $2.5 million or more, in cash, to the City of Ann Arbor for the development of Ann Arbor Town Square, however, no funds are being provided for the ongoing operational or maintenance costs of the Town Square. In addition, it is unclear if the donated funds are adequate to cover the full costs of development. While a number of possible options for funding are laid out, including the use of public funds, the Ann Arbor Community Commons proposal does not identify how the development of and ongoing operational and maintenance costs of this community common open space will be funded."