City Place developer asking Ann Arbor City Council one last time to reconsider Heritage Row
Ann Arbor developer Alex de Parry is making a final plea to four Ann Arbor City Council members to reverse their stance on his defeated Heritage Row Apartments project.
In two separate votes in June and July, the South Fifth Avenue housing project failed to get the eight votes needed for approval, with four council members opposing it.
After tweaking the plans and agreeing to discuss further revisions, de Parry is asking council members for a third and final consideration.
Heritage Row has support from seven of 11 council members, so de Parry needs only one more council member on board for the eight votes required.
Absent approval of Heritage Row, de Parry says his development team has no other choice but to push forward soon with an alternate development plan known as City Place, a project already approved and waiting in reserve.
Alex de Parry is asking four Ann Arbor City Council members to rethink their stance against Heritage Row Apartments.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
De Parry told council members in a recent letter that a great deal of work is required to prepare for construction, so the clock is ticking. Construction plans must be drawn, submitted and approved, he said, and contractors must be mobilized.
"All of this requires significant lead time," de Parry wrote in the letter. "We have approached the beginning of the lead time necessary to begin construction on either City Place or Heritage Row in May 2011, and I had hoped by now that a solution would be found so that Heritage Row could proceed and the houses would remain intact, a goal for which many citizens fought so hard."
De Parry has said for months he would prefer to build Heritage Row, a project that includes restoring seven century-old homes along the 400 block of South Fifth Avenue and adding three new apartment buildings behind them. He said he believes the project would attract national attention and be an innovative model for combining historic preservation with new construction.
The controversial City Place project — which involves knocking down the seven homes and replacing them with boxy apartment buildings and a 36-space surface parking lot — was begrudgingly approved by the City Council last year. Council members said they didn't like City Place, but it conforms to the city's zoning code and legally required their approval.
Heritage Row is proposed as a Planned Unit Development that deviates from the city's zoning code, and thus requires demonstrating enough public benefit to warrant special approval from council. Four council members have said they don't support it.
"A big important thing all the time to keep in mind is that it's a PUD and it has to be a public benefit. And that still remains, in my mind, the most important thing," said Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, one of the four who voted no on Heritage Row.
"This seems like an issue we've dealt with already," Anglin added. "And they've had that option to build City Place, but I don't think that's their intent."
The four council members being lobbied right now by the developer are Anglin, Stephen Kunselman, Sabra Briere and Carsten Hohnke.
Kunselman said he's not budging.
"It's kind of ironic that the development they have approved is the one that they don't want to build, so I don't have a whole lot of sympathy," he said. "If they didn't want to build City Place, then they shouldn't have submitted it. And to keep bringing something back for reconsideration at every council meeting, against the council rules, I don't know what they're thinking. I think it would look sad for any council member at this point to change their vote."
Hohnke couldn't be reached for comment.
But Briere and Anglin say they're willing to discuss the issues surrounding Heritage Row with the developer and, in fact, there's a meeting with de Parry scheduled for Monday.
Briere has said density is her biggest issue, and she might be willing to reconsider Heritage Row if de Parry is willing to reduce the number of bedrooms in the project. As it stands, City Place would be 144 bedrooms, while Heritage Row proposed 154.
Specifically, Briere has asked de Parry to eliminate one floor from one of the proposed apartment buildings that has a garden level with three stories above it. That would result in removing seven bedrooms and decrease the 38-foot-tall building by nine feet.
De Parry confirmed he plans to meet with Briere and any other council members who want to talk on Monday. He said he's willing to consider Briere's suggestion.
De Parry is proposing a handful of other changes to Heritage Row as he makes his final push. He vows to build it to LEED-certification standards and increase affordability. He proposes including six affordable housing units for people earning 50 percent of the area median income or less.
De Parry also has committed to reducing the height of all three new apartment buildings by two feet each by eliminating a parapet wall. He said the development agreement also has minor changes to accomplish energy conservation measures in the existing houses.
De Parry has indicated he'll have the financing to pull the project off, but public records indicate the developer is behind on paying at least some of his bills.
Betsy de Parry made a plea to the Ann Arbor City Council at its meeting last Monday to bring back Heritage Row.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
His company, Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, hasn't paid taxes on one of the seven houses since October 2008 and now owes $21,708 in delinquent taxes with interest, according to records on file with the Washtenaw County Treasurer's Office.
De Parry also is behind on paying his attorney, Scott Munzel, who filed a claim of lien against the property on June 17 for $60,564 in unpaid legal bills. According to records on file with the Washtenaw County Register of Deeds Office, Munzel said he completed $144,852 worth of legal work on the project since Oct. 1, 2006, but had been paid only $84,288.
De Parry referred explanation of the situation to Munzel, who said it was a "private matter" between the two and declined further comment.
Jeff Helminski, one of de Parry's development partners, said the City Place project already is moving forward. He said both City Place and Heritage Row are economically viable.
"We've authorized our engineers to start detailed engineering construction drawings for City Place, and that's the direction we're moving," he said. "There's a point of no return where we've gone far enough down the road with City Place, where we're not going to turn around and go another direction, and that point is probably not very far away."
Helminski hopes one of the four council members will change his or her mind. If they think the development team won't go forward with City Place, they're wrong, he said.
"If their strategy is to call our bluff, I suppose they'll see the failure of that when the houses start coming down," he said. "We're developers, we're not speculators. We're not in this business to play poker with the city. We're in this business to develop projects."
Briere said it will take at least two — and possibly three — votes by council, deviating from normal procedure, to even bring Heritage Row back to the table for discussion.
"We're not talking about something simple," she said. "I wish we were. And all of it is predicated on an expectation that at least one council member is willing to change his or her vote. Without that expectation, there's no reason to go through all the other hoops."
If de Parry moves ahead with City Place and demolishes the seven homes, Briere said, it won't be the fault of the four council members who stopped Heritage Row. She said it would be the fault of those on council who voted against creating a historic district to save the homes.
"Do I think Alex will build City Place?" she said. "He has every right to build City Place. I would be sad to see those houses come down, but they would not be the first old houses in the city to be destroyed by a developer — and by a developer with, quite frankly, not great taste in design when it comes to the City Place design." Briere called de Parry's continued push for Heritage Row "unusual."
"Generally when a project is defeated, they go away," she said. "Maybe they bring another project back, but they don't try to win the argument in the court of public opinion months after the fact by holding the bad ugly project, as a reserve project, as a threat."
Betsy de Parry, the developer's wife, made a plea to council at its meeting last Monday.
"I want to ask each and every one of you, next May, do any one of you want to drive past South Fifth Avenue and see an empty hole where one of those seven houses was?" she said. "I think the answer is no. I am asking you, please, to find a way to reconsider."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
townie
Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 5:05 p.m.
@demistify: Michigan law follows the common law principle (the majority rule to acquire a vested right) that states that in order to obtain vested rights in the zoning, a developer must engage in substantial expenditures on actual construction. A recent Michigan Court of Appeals case involving, of all things, a hog farm, affirmed this principal. (Belvidere Township v. Heinze, 241 Mich.App. 324, 615 N.W.2d 250 (2000)) City Council passed a resolution creating a study of R4C/R2A zoning before City Place was formally submitted, so the developer in this case cannot claim ignorance of a pending change to the zoning. The problems with the zoning were publicly discussed by Tony Derezinski when he announced his pending resolution in January 2009, and brought it forward in February 2009. It passed unanimously. When zoning changes are pending, it often starts a race between developers and a municipality to see which happens first: the zoning change or the construction. This is why a moratorium during zoning and planning updates is so useful. Sufficient information has already been gleaned from the R4C/R2A study and the City Place saga to effect some simple and reasonable changes quickly and easily.
demistify
Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 4:22 p.m.
@townie: The US Constitution bars ex post facto legislation (making something illegal after the fact). That said, there is no doubt that Ann Arbor zoning is broken. The guidelines are obviously inadequate, with cringe-inducing results (not only in this case). They are at times applied in a capricious manner, for instance by insistence that a shopping mall not have enough parking spaces. The Council then has the power to reverse the zoning decision (in either direction), and a super-majority rule kicks in if anyone squawks; the chief restraint seems to be fear of being sued. The Historical Comm. is the wild card: Historical districts are proclaimed according to very fuzzy criteria, and the Commission then has unrestricted powers of obstruction (It can prevent the owner from doing anything that displeases it, but it cannot force him to make needed repairs). The combination adds up to a very protracted and very unpredictable process. That kind of situation that lends itself to favoritism and corruption, hence to frequent accusations of same (whether justified or not). The whole system needs overhaul.
townie
Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.
Since City Place was reluctantly approved last year, how many ordinance revisions have been proposed by City Council to correct the loopholes and vague language that resulted in this undesirable project's approval? Zero. How much time has the planning commission devoted to the topic after claiming that their "hands were tied?" None. Shouldn't a project that meets the zoning requirements result in something reasonably attractive and in scale with its neighborhood? Why is Council leaving these loopholes open for the next developer to come along and play the same hard ball game? Zoning reform is where Council's attention needs to be directed--not trying to orchestrate a back room deal because they think they have a gun to their heads. Just unload the gun! Alex de Parry gave them a tremendous gift with City Place--a textbook on everything that is currently wrong with the zoning and its interpretation. Or perhaps an earlier back room deal already included playing along with this blackmail scheme? Heritage Row is dead. It's been killed twice. Let's move on and fix the zoning. Now.
bugjuice
Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 11:27 a.m.
Hieftje's a realtor. He must know about how LLC's hide the money to avoid paying taxes. When will we hear from him about this?
demistify
Tue, Sep 28, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.
As long as we are extolling this wonderful neighborhood (though not enough to want to live there, I suspect), why not extend the historical district designation to Fingerle Lumber across the street? After all, its name is the only thing German about the putative Germantown.
Speechless
Tue, Sep 28, 2010 : 8:24 a.m.
Wow. Have we reached the point where we're actually comparing the semi-burned out hulk at 322 E. Kingsley with these seven houses on Fifth Ave. just below William? By using that logic, one could argue for razing most of the Old West Side, where many of the homes are less distinguished in architecture and age than on S. Fifth Ave. Why not, let's say, just replace W. Madison St. with a series of City Places? The existing homes over there are pretty old, anyhow. And, further, we now argue here that slumlord neglect (and de Parry is the latest in the line of rental property stewards) should be allowed as a de facto justification for demolition? That is, by increasing current rental profits through a program of passive negligence, an owner may thereby also create an incentive for city hall to approve replacing older homes with denser, more profitable new construction — sounds like nice work if you can get it! Somewhere, David Kircher is smiling.
demistify
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 9:47 p.m.
We just closed the saga of another "historical home" after several years of grandstanding, namely the rotted, burned-out shack moldering next door to Zingerman's. The Historical Commission had unaccountably declared this eyesore to have historical value (by a one-vote margin). It was beyond repair. "Preservation" would have meant rebuilding it from scratch, an obviously pointless waste of money that was not going to happen because the replica would still not be of any use. Yet, the Historical Commission could not bring itself to admit that it had made a bad judgment call, and it agonized for a long time before reluctantly conceding that the public interest would be better served by clearing the debris and allowing Zingerman to expand there. Now, the usual suspects want to repeat the charade at another location. These houses had suffered many years of neglect under slumlords renting them out to students. It is disingenuous to blame de Parry for their condition; he has made a succession of proposals for doing something about them ever since he entered the scene, and the fact that they are sitting there and deteriorating further is due to those who have stymied all possible solutions (mostly the slumlords resisting the threat of competition by better quality student housing, plus anti-development at-any-cost ideologues).
Speechless
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 8 p.m.
"... Virtuous Ones have decided that the slum properties should remain undisturbed...." Thanks!  That reminds me to mention again that — instead of continuing to turn historical homes with some nice architectural features into 'slum' houses through deferred maintenance — maybe de Parry can move his City Place concept onto that nice, temporary parking area right across Fifth Ave. from the downtown library, directly kitty corner from the site of this controversy. Anybody at city hall wanna do a little land swap? It would suit me just fine to see the project slide on over there, or even a few feet further to the north on top of the future underground parking structure (where it could share space with a downscaled community commons and rechristen itself as Heritage Lot Apts.). A more appropriate location, combined with revitalization of the seven homes, would allow new central city housing construction to go hand in hand with historical preservation.
johnnya2
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 7:49 p.m.
@bugjuice Here is exactly what I wrote in a post prior, " Republicans are doing this in the US Senate, and now Dems are doing it in A2 city counsel." Yes, it is WRONG for both. These are NOT constitutional amendments that need to be ratified by such a large margin. It is utter stupidity for the city, AND the federal government to allow such idiocy. The senate is a prime example, in that they just put it in their rules. No vote from people, no constitutional mandate It is why the two party system will always be in party, because the one thing both dems and republicans can agree on is they like being in power. It's an old boy network that is a failure.
demistify
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 3:18 p.m.
@bugjuice: "How many folks who complain about the majority/supermajority rules on council ever condemn Republican filibusters at the State and Federal levels?" On this blog, it would not surprise me to find that all of them do. Most certainly I do, and my distaste for undemocratic dodges goes beyond that. It is you who fail to maintain a foolish consistency by objecting to filibusters only when they impede actions you favor, but support using super-majority rules to block actions you oppose.
demistify
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 3:06 p.m.
I thank Speechless for cutting through the specious arguments and laying out the position frankly: The Virtuous Ones have decided that the slum properties should remain undisturbed, and it is the moral duty of the City Council to manipulate all the rules to that end, whether by retroactive zoning or historical district designation, legality be damned. The end justifies the means.
Speechless
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 12:18 p.m.
It would be criminal to allow Heritage Row to come forward for a third vote on city council without first having further deliberations and a second vote on the historic district proposal for the neighborhood. Some nearby homes, possibly including one or more now owned by de Parry, apparently once belonged to Ann Arbor's former non-contiguous historic district, so the issue of preservation should be revisited. That City Place can move ahead at all is due to city council willfully dragging its feet several years ago following the loss of the non-contiguous district. The neighborhood should have been promptly rezoned to disallow possible large apartment buildings without any PUD status required. Since that wasn't done, moving to create a historic district is now the only alternative. By failing to initiate proper rezoning or a historic district, council did ultimately set itself up for the present blackmail circumstances — surrender now (keep those hands held high!) and approve Heritage Row, or else the landlord promises to pull the trigger and send out the wrecking crew. This developer has taken an approach that last year caused even the builder-friendly Leigh Greden to roll his eyes during a council meeting. ------------ "... to make sure that things won't get demolished before construction financing is in place and the new construction starts in a timely manner...." In the context of tight lending and a badly faltering cash flow for the aspiring developer, can anyone demonstrate that phrases like "financing is in place" and "timely manner" represent more than mere wishful thinking?
Alfie
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.
@Cahill, The City Place plan complied with all applicable zoning and development codes. The neighbors have been desperate to stop the project and will come up with any excuse. Their 'claims' were examined and found to be baseless by staff, Planning Commission and City Council. Anybody can 'claim' there are errors, it doesnt make it true. It's sad that a very small group of neighbors and slumlords can derail such a beneficial project for the ENTIRE City. Mr. DeParry has spent way to much time and money trying to appease a small group of people and short-sighted council members that will never change their mind becuase as long as any neighbor opposes a project, that's all that matters to them. The lesson for developers: dont try and modify your plans for neighborhood concerns, dont get creative and innovative with a project, it will only cost you a TON of money and time and the nighbors will never be happy, instead just build your cheapest by-right project that nobody likes and you would have saved all that time and money. He should have stopped the process and started construction on City Place after the denial of Heritage Row. It's sad, but blame the selfish niegbbors when you drive by the City Place project in the future. Mr DeParry has a right to develop his property, he put forth a very reasonable compromise at huge expense to him and he was shot down, it sounds like he is still trying to make revisions(at significant cost) to build the better project, he has tried, the 4 council members refused to budge, go forth and build City Place.
leaguebus
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 9:43 a.m.
Wonder if 7 or 8 extra bedrooms could help the council could use Heritage Row as a bargaining chip to make sure that things won't get demolished before construction financing is in place and the new construction starts in a timely manner.
bugjuice
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 8:53 a.m.
How many folks who complain about the majority/supermajority rules on council ever condemn Republican filibusters at the State and Federal levels?
Stephen Landes
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 11 p.m.
@Cahill Maybe the developer would have an easier time paying lawyers and taxes if the city council didn't WASTE SO MUCH OF HIS MONEY ON STUPIDITY!
johnnya2
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:07 p.m.
Still nobody against the project can defend super majority counsel decisions. The minority is the one stopping what the MAJORITY approved. I hope once the houses are rubble those people against it take 100 % responsibility for their failure.
indigonation
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 5:54 p.m.
I like the heritage row Idea way better.
bugjuice
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 5:26 p.m.
More than a few of those "old crusties" who are residents, made Ann Arbor the vibrant and eminently livable city it is today. The too cool for school, millennial, part time, temporary residents want it given to them on a silver platter.
Hadley
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 4:11 p.m.
I beg to differ that this is "developer blackmail." Whether anyone likes or dislikes City Place, it complies with existing zoning codes and as Ms. Briere notes, the developer has every right to build it. Don't like it? Blame the zoning codes, not Mr. dePerry. How quickly people forget that he's the one who came around to a reasonable compromise that would save the houses after citizens raised an outcry to save them but that project - Heritage Row - didnt meet zoning codes so he applied for a PUD, something he didnt have to do. Thats not blackmail. Its giving the city a choice and in this case, the developer is giving the city the choice it wanted all along the preservation of those seven old houses.
Ryan Munson
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 3:14 p.m.
It would be nice to find a way to build some condos downtown that are targeted toward young professionals that don't qualify for low income housing, but do qualify for "I don't make a lot of money" housing.
Marshall Applewhite
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 2:21 p.m.
It's a good thing that the "Old Crusties" who've operated this city for he past 40+ years are slowly losing control. Once these people are finally placed into retirement homes, the residents of Ann Arbor will actually be able to create a vibrant, livable city.
Speechless
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 1:49 p.m.
"... [Briere] has an option to keep the seven houses -- vote yes on Heritage Row." Listen up, Ann Arbor City Council.  Vote YES for developer blackmail!
bugjuice
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.
I wonder how many folks who advise Mr De Parry to sue complain that there are too many attorneys and whine about people who are lawsuit happy?
David Cahill
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.
Tsk. Responsible people pay their taxes and pay their contractors.
Stephen Landes
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.
The "just say no" Four on council need to understand that de Perry is a responsible person who has offered them a proposal to preserve what many people in this community seem to value: existing older homes. He certainly has the right to build whatever the city code permits and Im sure he will build something that maximizes his return; just what we expect business people to do. Council, on the other hand, is taking a busy-body approach, wanting to tweak every last element in the Heritage Row proposal to meet their personal tastes. That approach is simply wrong: we don't need a bunch of art and architecture critics on Council: we do need people who will follow the code and regulations, make this city welcoming to business people who want to spend money here, hire people, and create quality buildings. If any justification for Heritage Row is necessary then all Council has to look to is the preservation of those seven houses. I am floored by Briere's comment as quoted in the article -- "I would be sad to see those houses come down, but they would not be the first old houses in the city to be destroyed by a developer and by a developer with, quite frankly, not great taste in design when it comes to the City Place design." -- is childish. She has an option to keep the seven houses -- vote yes on Heritage Row.
sandy schopbach
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.
How dare the promoter say "either you give me what I want or I'll tear it all down, and it'll be your fault"! That's blackmail! And very typical of the attitude of business nowadays.
JPhil
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.
Interesting that David Cahill is married to Council Member Briere...
bugjuice
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.
As if city council is bluffing or has any reason to do so. It's Mr De Parry who will benefit by his bluff (lawsuit and a "big hole") by using the court of public opinion to get his way. I doubt he has more money for attorneys than the city has to defend against a potential lawsuit. In any event, the anti development whiners here on a2.com will be on to their next convention by the time any lawsuit is settled.
Speechless
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.
"... Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership... now owes $21,708 in delinquent taxes with interest... his attorney, Scott Munzel, who filed a claim of lien against the property on June 17 for $60,564 in unpaid legal bills...." During this Great Recession, what financial institution is going to provide the already overextended de Parry operation with the huge chunk of change required to launch a planned, seven-point assault on architectural history? Even if Heritage Row gets approved after a major downsizing, could it be the case, financially, that the only way out will be to sell off these properties? The collapse of the housing bubble significantly reduces the potential profit from merely 'flipping' the ownership of the Fifth Avenue homes. Plus, construction of the Zaragon buildings, 4 Eleven Lofts, North Quad, and so on, further limits the market value of older homes used for rental income. For de Parry's purposes, however, the existing pre-approval for City Place can counter these housing trends and help recover bubble-era market values for his properties by collectively providing them with a special appeal to other developers with deeper pockets. Future approval for some form of Heritage Row should add further worth to the grouped homes by giving any potential new owner more "built-in" development options upon purchase. A nightmare scenario here is that de Parry somehow finds sufficient resources to demolish seven historic residences, but then runs out of cash, leaving behind a gravel field of dreams stretching halfway down the block. Do we really need more developers like Concannon and Schubiner?
rulieg
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:25 a.m.
why do we need to build either? what's wrong with the houses that are there? it's not like there are thousands of students wandering the streets looking for a place to live: there are tons of student-housing options already. people love Ann Arbor because it's funky and it has character. if we keep knocking down its charming buildings and putting up ugly buildings, we will turn into Southfield and lose the charm and character that made us what we are. do you really want that? and what's up with this developer basically trying to blackmail us? you know if it's sooooo hard for him to get approval here, then let him leave here and go build elsewhere.
David Cahill
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:21 a.m.
Don't assume that de Parry has the "right" to build City Place. The neighbors have made some pretty strong arguments that City Place violates the existing zoning rules. If de Parry makes actual moves toward construction (aside from bluster), I fully expect the neighbors to sue to stop the project.
SMAIVE
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:03 a.m.
At this point call the City's bluff; this is no longer progress but the overstepping of government involvement. It amazes me council's fight over this issue when the horrendous monstrosity of a tin can addition to city hall destroyed the Hobbs & Black design. The Heritage project provides a chance to save some of the historical characteristics. In the end, if de Parry ends up losing these properties, the chance someone else fixing the homes is slim to none. Good luck in getting individuals to purchase and renovate as single family in this real estate market.
Hadley
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.
It was Briere, Hohnke, Kunselman and Mayor Heiftje who voted for the historic district (Anglin was absent) because they wanted to protect houses that they viewed as part of Ann Arbors heritage. Once it was defeated, the mayor moved into reality and had the good sense to realize that Heritage Row was a better option to save the houses, and he then supported the project. What happened to the other three and Anglin? Now that they are refusing to save seven of the very houses they were supposedly trying to protect is a complete flip flop and shows a total lack of sincerity about preservation. And to blame the council members who voted against the historic district shows a complete lack of common sense. These houses are falling victim to zero-sum politics: if I cant have a historic district, then you cant have Heritage Row. How ironic that after all the public outcry to save the houses, and the push by Briere, Hohnke, Kunselman and Anglin to do so, it is the developer himself whos making the last stand to save them and these very four council members a minority are standing in the way. Its time to quit playing the blame game. Otherwise City Place will rise as a monument to incompetence and lack of compromise for generations to come.
bugjuice
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 9:39 a.m.
99.865% support is pure hyperbole and means nothing. Where's the silent majority on all this? It appears that the entire silent majority who support unnecessary and bad development exist here on a2.com because we never hear from them publicly when the chips are down. The so called vocal minority are people who actually care and take part in he public discussion. The so called silent majority are silent for a reason. They're uninformed and/or don't care. If you don't care, don't take part or are uninformed, why should your opinion carry more weight than those who actually participate in the public process?
johnnya2
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 9:37 a.m.
Another example of needing too many votes for something that the majority approve. Over 63% of the city counsel approved Heritage Row. In this alternate universe it requires over 70% to approve anything moving forward. When City Place gets built and the 7 houses are demolished what will city counsel do then? I really don't care about either project, but I am offended that the bar to do anything is set so high that things can not be done. Republicans are doing this in the US Senate, and now Dems are doing it in A2 city counsel.
sbbuilder
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 9:12 a.m.
"We're not talking about something simple," she said. "I wish we were." Our dear enlightened council in one sound bite.
A2_Jim
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 9:08 a.m.
Everybody recognizes that Heritage Row is a vastly better proposal than City Place. Only the over-inflated egos of 4 members of City Council can't come to grips with this fact. 99.865% of the city believe, rightly, that the city would be a better place if Heritage Row were constructed as opposed to City Place. Council has already approved City Place so the destruction of a beloved streetscape is a foregone conclusion, unless those on City Council who listen more to vocal minorities than have the best interests of the greater city at heart swallow their pride and do the right thing and vote to approve the revised Heritage Row proposal.
Veracity
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.
oldgaffer: Anglin, Kunselman, Briere and Hohnke along with the other city council members have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Ann Arbor to protect the city from harm. The harm that de Parry can do to Ann Arbor is two-fold. First, Mr. de Parry can deface the city with an unsightly project that detracts from the attractive appearance and quality of life within our small city. Secondly, Mr. de Parry can produce a blight within the city if he is unable to obtain sufficient funding to complete construction as has already occurred with other projects in the Ann Arbor area. As it is, Mr. de Parry is only now considering drawing up detailed architectural designs upon which cost can be calculated and funding sought. Construction interrupted by bankruptcy will leave large holes and partially completed buildings as visual offenses for a decade or longer. And, if actually completed, City Place or Heritage Row (take your pick) is likely to fail as a business model of "Field of Dreams," based on the premise that "if you build it they will come." The future population of Ann Arbor is expected to remain unchanged with no demand for new residential construction. The only success likely associated with either City Place or Heritage Row will be de Perry's sizable developer's fee which will be taken off the top of any funding so that it can not be lost when his plans fail.
David Cahill
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 7:49 a.m.
Thanks to AnnArbor.com for its great research! Imagine - de Parry's lawyer hasn't been paid. And he hasn't paid over $20,000 in taxes! No, this is not normal behavior for businesses. De Parry is in major financial trouble, and he hasn't even broken ground for the project. De Parry's development team will now tell us why City Council should deal with this guy at all.
xmo
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 7:41 a.m.
I like the expertise on design shown by council member Sabra Briere "and by a developer with, quite frankly, not great taste in design " Just because you were elected to city council does make you an art/design expert!
My2bits
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 7:31 a.m.
I am a former developer who worked in Novi and West Bloomfield when they were "difficult" but highly profitable places to develop. The city and township leaders extracted compromises from us then because they could. Don't feel sorry for De Parry. Developers have to spend a lot of time and effort in the approval phase. That is the way it works. If council was preventing ALL development, that would be wrong and we would toss them out of office. Council represents us and our differing views. That is their job. Council was split, as are the citizens it represents. That is how it should be. I agree strongly with the comment about AnnArbor.com's leading poll question. Shame on you. Bad journalism. Note, I did not weigh in on my personal views on City Place or Heritage Row. My point is that the process is working the way it should.
bugjuice
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.
The answer "yes, it's better than City Place" to the polling question belie a bias by annarbor.com in favor of Alex De Parry's project by making the responder make a comparison and choose between City Place and Heritage Row. Heritage Row may be "better" but like City Place. It's the wrong site for this project. It's shameful that the developer and his wife pose the "choice" as a threat.
bugjuice
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 6:35 a.m.
Yeah, Ann Arbor is really hostile to developers. That's why the city has undergone two major building booms in the last 25 years and there are half dozen approved projects that haven't come out of the ground yet due to forces beyond the city's control like lack of financing and demand that greedy developers who prefer to find ways around the rules, didn't plan on or had the foresight to predict. It's not new or earthshaking that all developers, builders and contractors complain about regulations. Woe is them.
oldgaffer
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 5:52 a.m.
Anglin, Kunselman, Briere and Hohnke have been notorious busybodies on city council, voting against progress just to please a few like-minded busybodies. There is no reason why de Parry should remove a floor to placate Briere. Ann Arbor is regarded by developers and builders around the State as a hostile place to plan and build. Those four council members want to regulate, not cooperate and accommodate. Instead of hindering they should be helping citizens like de Parry. I say he should stick to his guns and sue the pants off the city for any further arbitrary and capricious action.