Heritage Row faces defeat despite support from majority of Ann Arbor council members
City Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, studied the currently approved City Place site plan during a recess in Monday's meeting. He was considering changing his vote on Heritage Row, which would have led to the project's approval.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
To use a sports analogy, Ann Arbor developer Alex de Parry came back from a daunting deficit Monday night only to miss a shot at the buzzer that would have sent the game into overtime.
That's how the vote on Heritage Row played out before the Ann Arbor City Council, which barely turned down the near-downtown apartment project de Parry has fought three years to get approved.
Developer Alex de Parry lost his battle to get Heritage Row apartments approved before the City Council Monday night.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The mayor and council voted 7-4 in favor of the project Monday night. But even with majority support, it still fell one vote short of the eight required for approval.
Members of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, who have heavily opposed the project, submitted official petitions of opposition to the city clerk's office on June 7, forcing the super-majority requirement.
It's the same way they ensured the defeat of the Moravian in April. The 62-unit apartment complex proposed for development at 201 E. Madison St. was rejected by council, despite a 6-4 vote of support.
After 90 minutes of public hearings Monday, during which a mix of opinions were shared, council members deliberated for more than an hour.
But it seemed apparent even before Monday's meeting how each council member planned to vote — and that the 79-unit apartment complex proposed for construction along South Fifth Avenue, just south of William Street, wasn't going to have the support it needed.
Council Members Carsten Hohnke, Sabra Briere, Mike Anglin, and Stephen Kunselman all previously voiced opposition to Heritage Row, and the lack of their votes alone was enough to stop the project in its tracks.
All four of them opposed the project again during Monday's meeting, citing fears that Heritage Row was out of scale with the Germantown neighborhood.
But late in the evening, Mayor John Hieftje offered remarks that had Kunselman rethinking his position.
Hieftje said the Planned Unit Development proposal for Heritage Row wasn't perfect, but it was an improvement over the City Place project that the City Council previously approved. He said he feared City Place could be built instead if the council voted against Heritage Row.
"I find this proposal more palatable than the by-right project that's been approved on this site," Hieftje said.
City Place, an alternate proposal for the same site, already is approved and calls for knocking down seven century-old homes and replacing them with boxy apartment buildings and a surface parking lot —Â a project almost everyone opposes.
The less-controversial Heritage Row, which evolved from City Place, called for tucking three new buildings in the backyards of the seven houses and completing historically correct renovations of the houses instead of demolishing them.
Kunselman, who was the only council member not in office last year when City Place was begrudgingly approved, confessed he didn't have intimate knowledge about the project that might be built instead of Heritage Row.
Kunselman said his vote might be swayed, but he needed time to think.
After a 13-minute recess late in the evening, which gave Kunselman a chance to study the issue, he asked his colleagues on council if they'd be willing to postpone the vote on Heritage Row two more weeks. He again reiterated his vote could change, but he needed time to think.
At 11:45 p.m., the council voted 6-5 against the postponement. Minutes later, Kunselman was forced to vote on the Heritage Row plan and said if he had to vote right then, he had to vote no.
And with Kunselman's no vote, the project went down.
An artist's rendition of the Heritage Row project streetscape in which trees have been graphically removed to show the development.
Courtesy Image
That leaves de Parry contemplating his next steps. He said he has no other option at this point but to push forward with City Place, which calls for 24 units with 144 bedrooms.
That's 10 bedrooms less than Heritage Row, which offered underground parking in place of the 36-space surface parking lot in the City Place site plan.
While no one on council prefers the City Place project, it conforms to all of the city's current zoning ordinances and regulations. City officials said in September that voting against it could pose a legal risk.
But City Place still could be halted. The council is expected to vote in two weeks on the creation of a historic district for the Germantown neighborhood. If approved, it likely would keep de Parry from being able to demolish the seven houses to build City Place.
De Parry consulted with his attorney in private outside city hall after Monday's vote. He later spoke to AnnArbor.com and expressed regret that the council didn't give Kunselman the opportunity to consider his vote on Heritage Row.
"I wish we would have had two weeks so he would have taken a closer look and could have been swayed," he said. "I can't do anything about it. I'm sitting in the audience. I'm disappointed, of course."
Both sides made strong cases for and against Heritage Row. Ultimately, it came down to how council members felt.
Approval of PUD projects, which call for exceptions to current zoning, are handled on a case-by-case basis and are discretionary decisions by council. The idea is that a project should offer enough public benefit that council members have a compelling reason to approve it.
In past instances where PUDs were approved, Hieftje said they have been rare exceptions that met a high standard.
Hohnke, D-5th Ward, said he feared approving Heritage Row would send a message to other developers that the city is OK with allowing significant density increases in near-downtown neighborhoods, as long as houses aren't demolished in the process.
He said the city should tread lightly when considering rezoning the central portion of an existing residential neighborhood. He said exceptions to the zoning should offer a significant public benefit, and Heritage Row didn't.
"After significant research on this proposal, I come to the conclusion that the benefits don't meet the threshold that we would like to have for a PUD, especially at this location," Hohnke said.
Council Member Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward, spoke in support of the project, saying it was good for a transitional — already partly commercial — near-downtown neighborhood. He sympathized with the developer for having to jump through the city's moving hoops.
"It kind of reminds me of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, and every time he goes to kick it, she pulls it back," he said. "And I think the standards have been moving on this one here, so it's a very difficult standard to meet. But at some point in time, you've got to let somebody kick the field goal."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Speechless
Wed, Jun 23, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.
Good news! Heritage Row received the expected minimum number of "no" votes. Now, assuming the historic district proposal passes, the project will lose this round. These houses will move a few steps closer to being saved. Hypothetically, de Parry could resolve his frustrations with the city by moving his land ownership kitty-corner across the intersection, over to the former site of the "Y" building. There — away from the residential block — he could likely gain approval to build his own Zaragon, if desired. And then there's some things that just make me wonder....           Warning:  <pure_speculation> The City Place plan was brought forward in order to make the Heritage Row plan look good. It also lurks in the background, acting as a threat. The nasty look of City Place gives Heritage, by comparison, the happy appearance of historic preservation, although it's barely a weak facsimile of that. By wielding the previous approval for City Place as an intimidating stick, de Parry seeks to magically transform the somewhat less destructive Heritage project into a carrot that the city will want. Alternately, from the standpoint of full preservation, his two development "options" can be viewed as an attempt to impose a residential Sophie's choice upon the immediate neighborhood. Historic district status for the area, however, would undercut that by giving teeth to a third option of complete preservation. Meanwhile, the Kunselman-Heiftje exchange looks choreographed. Steve is, of course, far too smart and organized not to have studied and understood last year's City Place vote well ahead of Monday's meeting. Rest assured, he did not procrastinate until the final 13 minutes before singlehandedly deciding the fate for several of the city's oldest homes. Also, remember that while Kunselman was not on council during the City Place vote, he was at that time effectively "council member-elect," having just won an August primary; he was watching the process and the vote. Besides giving the outward appearance of serious public deliberation on this item, Kunselman's vacillation and request for a vote delay may also provide a superficial rationale in the event council wants to reopen the vote. It's clearly a silly and meager rationale, but it should do the trick if needed. Among the four "no" votes, only Steve can do this. Briere and Anglin were not going to support Heritage Row and would suffer political damage among their base should they have paused for a second before voting it down. Hohnke simply couldn't vote "yes," or even waffle for a minute, if he hopes to win his ward primary in six weeks. So Steve steps in to play the role of the suddenly perplexed and wavering council vote, the guy who couldn't seem to complete his homework before one of his bigger votes. He can uniquely afford to waver for a bit without hurting chances in his next ward primary.            </pure_speculation> These residences on S. Fifth Ave. are not the garden variety, 80-90 year old wood frame houses commonly seen in older neighborhoods. They're much older, including some existing pre-Civil War construction. Collectively, the houses in question still look impressive even though poorly maintained by the developer. They'll make for a terrific streetscape once someone (or some group) fixes them up. 'Heritage' Row, however, is not about 'modifications.'
Rasputin
Wed, Jun 23, 2010 : 10:46 a.m.
@ MB111, comparing city projects to developer specials is a little like comparing apples and oranges. Please do your homework. :)
calmic
Wed, Jun 23, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.
The original City Place plan was terrible. But Mr. De Parry came back with a creative design that seems to address the 'legitimate' concerns of the opponents - i.e. the old homes will be not only kept but also restored. This is an example of "smart infill", which is exactly what the downtown area needs. It is very unfortunate that the NIMBY extremists and self-serving slum-lords can kill an innovative project like this. It is frustrating that Kunselman could be so glib about an important project like this as to not be better informed of what the real issues are. Once again, the obstructionist minority has their way.
MB111
Wed, Jun 23, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.
The irony on the "historic district process" is that many of the local NiMBYs were put on a committee to determine if a historic district was necessary. Ironically, and of course a self-fulfilling prophecy, they determined that it was in fact "historic". What a joke.
Cendra Lynn
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 11:52 p.m.
A heartfelt word to developers who try to go against neighborhood residents: GO! We don't want you. We don't need you. You attempt to do great harm simply to make money. There are excess homes and apartments all over this town, many in foreclosure. We don't need more. Those of you carrying on about owner-occupied and rental properties need to do your research on the way historic districts are formed and why. The history of the Old West Side is an excellent example.
annarbor28
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 11:12 p.m.
why is all of this development necessary? Are there a bunch of homeless yuppies looking for apartments? Or is this student housing? Section 8?
John Q
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:53 p.m.
" It seems crazy to me that non-resident property owners (many of whom don't live in and can't vote in the city) can trigger a mechanism that requires a super majority vote. We need to change this aspect of the charter." It has nothing to do with the charter. It comes from state law governing zoning and applies to every zoned community in the state.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.
Thanks Ryan for the link to the meeting. I looked at the pictures and I see old house of little or no historic value. I also noted in the text where someone is trying to make a historic connection, phrases such as "was connected with..." and "may have been built by..." I would presume a historic commission would require real proof. I think its great they still stand but I don't see enough to justify encroaching on a property owner's rights.
townie
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.
@Mick52: The name of the proposed district is "The 4th and 5th Avenues Historic District," not Germantown. Most, if not all of your questions can be answered by spending a little time on the committee's web page: http://www.a2gov.org/GOVERNMENT/COMMUNITYSERVICES/PLANNINGANDDEVELOPMENT/HISTORICPRESERVATION/Pages/STUDYCOMMITTEEREPORTS.aspx
Mick52
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:25 p.m.
@rusty I had the same thought, why is Mr. Kunselman still on the fence here? I believe this has been on the record for an extended time now, two years maybe. Doesn't instill much confidence.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.
Thanks Ed. I have no doubt the area was settled and developed and that people resided there. But do these registers contain evidence that the S 5th Ave area is justified to be labeled as a Germantown Historic district? Or any district? Is the simple fact that people lived on a street during these years justify its designation as historic? While skimming your article I did not see anything to suggest such. My post (sorry it became so long) was intended to point out that to designate S 5th Ave as Germantown Historic district is geographically questionable as significant. Also the register notes addresses and residents but the structures could have evolved correct? When I look at the seven houses on S Fifth Ave, I ponder are they historic or just old houses? I would prefer some solid reason to deem them historic rather than just old, especially with the modifications from the original structure. If these homes were originally single family dwellings with a front yard and back yard, but were converted to apartments, with outside fire escapes and parking lots where the back yard used to be, then to me the historic appeal is greatly diminished. When you think of a historic building usually its been restored to its glory days, perhaps it housed a famous person and was maintained over the years. It just seems to me that to use historic district designation to oppose Mr de Parry's project like this is not appropriate. I met him once while doing a project on this issue for a development class I was enrolled in. I was very impressed with his attitude and commitment. You might be interested in Ms Shackman's book. A2 had some fantastic structures, like the old courthouse. Its too bad so many are gone, but the building materials and construction just could not hold up.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 2:13 p.m.
I should note that the first reading of the new historic district passed Monday night with an 8-3 vote (Derezinski, Rapundalo, Higgins). Click here to read the language of the ordinance and view a map.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.
Thx Edward Vielmetti. I incorrectly thought Ward 1 ended about 8 blocks north of where it actually ends.
MB111
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 1:39 p.m.
Rasputin, last I checked it was not Council's charge to assess the marketplace. If it were, they wouldn't be paying $471/sf to build a new, ugly City hall annex. The NIMBYs fight any change. As a result we will get the Ugly City Place project which will extend the student ghetto into this neighborhood. Heritage Row would have provided "real person" housing within easy walking distance to both downtown and the U. Its unfortunate that the inability to change will lead to a lesser project.
Rasputin
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 12:45 p.m.
Council is proving to be most prudent in not giving the go ahead for this development. The laws of supply and demand simply illustrate no immediate need for this PUD.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 12:25 p.m.
Any info on why Kunselman didn't bother to read up on the matter at hand before the council meeting? It's not like the issue was a surprise, it was on the agenda well in advance. Glad to know we're governed by people who come up with their wise well-reasoned conclusions during a 13 minute break. On the other hand, the others are even worse. They had the time to see that this was a vast improvement, giving the opponents essentially everything they claimed to want, and still rejected a perfectly reasonable project just for the hell of it. Not sure why Anglin or anyone else is so concerned about some project that happens far from their ward.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
These shenanigan are a farce. Germantown, what a joke. The opposition to this is most likely from owners of rental units in the area who fear competition of a nice place to live among the rubble in this block. The first plan was by far the best and would have significantly enhanced this neighborhood. The historic district designation should be barred from use like this. If its not already a historic district, then that process should not be used to keep a property owner from developing his property. Why is it that in a historic district the homes do not have to be maintained as they were at the "historic" period? I bet none of these homes now look like they did during whatever time they existed that would lead anyone to pronounce them historic. These are old structures that should be torn down. Can anyone opposing this development please show us some online proof or documentation from before this project began, that this neighborhood could be considered as "Germantown?" For example, I have Grace Shackman's book, Images of America Ann Arbor In the 19th Century A Photographic History. Grace has photos of several buildings she notes as significant in the settlement of German immigrants. The locations are all on the west side: 1st German church in MI-just west of town on Jackson Rd. where Bethlehem cemetery is now, near the intersection of I-94 and Jackson Rd. In 1845 Bethlehem church was at the corner of Washington and First Sts. A specific notation about Jefferson and Fourth St. (not 4th Ave), Second Ward school was built, "Serving the children of the Old West Side, where the majority of the Germans resided." Hmm. Grace writes the majority of Germans resided in the old west side. So the location in question, on S. 5th Ave, east of Main St. - is someone proposing this is the old west side? Or does this proposed historic district extend from S 5th Ave all the way out to Jackson and 94? Well Metzgers is out there now so that suffices. Third Ward School was on Miller near the current entrance to West Park. Named after prominent German Christian Mack, who started a major department store. Mack School is at Miller and 7th Ave. So, if Mr Mack lived in the S 5th Ave.,a area, A2 picked a great location for a school named for him, huh? German school, supported from 1845 to 1916, built by the German community first in Bethlehem Church and later moved to First St. So from this book it appears any German town in Ann Arbor should probably be designated in the areas where the Germans lived, west of Main St. something I have heard before but cannot recall where. I suppose the Germans could have built these structures and then decided to live way over on S 5th Ave so they could live as far away as possible from their schools and churches, especially the Bethlehem church on Jackson Rd. What a trip that must have been in January. Too bad there wasn't a Germantown Historic earlier eh, then all these historic buildings might still be standing. In the old west side, where the Germans lived, schooled, and worshiped. I hope if this historic district is approved, the State Historic Preservation Review Board sees it as the inappropriate use of historic designation it is and rejects it with a stern warning to not try these shenanigans again. You don't fool with history nor try to change it to suit your current needs. It should be accurate. I think it would be insulting to the German immigrants, prominent in Ann Arbor history, to designate this area Germantown if Ms. Shackman is correct when she writes most German immigrants lived in the old west side. Once again, I apologize if my data is incorrect. If someone can somehow prove South Fifth Ave is in fact historic in re to German immigrants I will defer. It appears we are a few blocks off. I prefer factual information with documentation in re to further information.
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.
"Kelo was a case where the court upheld a public taking for private development." Distinctions between de Parry property and Kelo follow, making Heritage Row defeat even less defensible. The public taking of DeParry's development rights exists in years of denied proposals by Ca2, as well as by-right denial through institution of historic study district. The private benefit is to the Germantown Neighborhood Association. In Kelo, the public taking for private benefit had a veiled component of public benefit: economic development and job creation. These were controversial because they were never realized. The taking of De Parry's property rights has no such component of public benefit. No public benefit is being preserved. No public benefit is being created. Whatever the case, Ca2 Council activity makes interesting pre-primary fodder. We also see why Ca2 needs the large legal staff that it has. They have been, are, and will be busy. There's no talk of layoffs in the legal department...
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 11:49 a.m.
We've posted an open letter sent Monday morning to Mayor John Hieftje and the Ann Arbor City Council by Betsy de Parry, wife and business partner of developer Alex de Parry, here: http://www.annarbor.com/news/government/an-open-letter-to-the-mayor-and-ann-arbor-city-council-regarding-heritage-row/
bill
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
Sorry couldn't make the meeting,but sounds like logical input would not help. This council, with some exceptions, is way off base. If I were Alex I would bulldoze all of the property today before the council allows another historical district to be added. Why not make the whole city historical maybe Mr. Anglin's business would be disallowed because it is a commerical business in a historical district. My advice to all developers is to take your project to Ypsilanti which can use some development. Let Ypsi come back to be the city it used to be and let A2 be filled with people who want to live in the past. I'll also bet a convention center could be built in Ypsi and could service two schools. The plumbers covention would rather be there than A2.
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 11:03 a.m.
"The creation of a historic district does not constitute a compensable "taking"." It might be compensable as it was a means to block a specific development, especially since the area was previously deemed not to be worthy of study. Council could use "study area" as a block, or R4C moratorium. Many R4C owners have deeper pockets than one Mr. de Parry. The study area was thus approved... R4C moratorium was not instituted... all in the same meeting. Also, the developer has followed many avenues to seek cooperative development, all of which have been denied.
Tom Teague
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 11 a.m.
Thanks again, David. That's good perspective.
David Cahill
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.
The creation of a historic district does not constitute a compensable "taking".
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
There seems to be little argument as to the "taking" of de Parry's development right. If true, then we should be considering the VALUE of de Parry's development right. That amount is what de Parry loses over time, through deprivation of right. It includes such things as builder profit, income stream profit, reversionary profit, etc. These financial benefits are lost by de Parry, in blocking his by-right development. These are amounts that Ca2 taxpayers will likely be paying Mr. de Parry, in lieu of his by-right development. It means that de Parry's development reward could be paid, without developer risk, by taxpayers. However, taxpayers will receive no public benefit in this purchase. Voters approved of purchasing development rights in townships. Likewise, will we be content with purchasing de Parry's private development right in the City? Consider it our gift to the income property owners aka Germantown Neighborhood Association. Disagree? Look into Bird Hills acquisition for local precedent of the Ca2 paying for private development rights of approved by-right development. The difference is that there was public taking for public good... We received a beautiful nature area. What will regular taxpayers receive in the taking of de Parry's by-right development? Who will benefit? The answers to these questions depends on where you live, or where you own.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.
It would also be interesting to find out how many of the houses in Germantown are single family and how many rental houses. As we all know, competition in the rental market makes some of the uglier rental landlords upgrade their properties to compete with the clean new stuff. As long as the landlords can get a couple of council persons to act in their behalf and stifle competition, all is good. Yes, you are correct. The vast majority of homes on Fifth south of William serve as multi-unit rentals. It seems crazy to me that non-resident property owners (many of whom don't live in and can't vote in the city) can trigger a mechanism that requires a super majority vote. We need to change this aspect of the charter. There are already denser developments less than 2 blocks from the proposed site. This is not about density or the character of the neighborhood. Small time landlords have a right to try to protect their financial interests, but it is disingenuous, to say the least, that council and the "neighborhood associations" that control them pretend it is anything more than that.
JMA2Y
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.
Did they on purpose kill Heritage Row which would have preserved the lovely old homes. so that they could be torn down and replaced with ugly boxy buildings? Sounds like a set up. I preferred Hertiage Row over City Place.
LBH
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:30 a.m.
I fail to understand what people feel should be preserved. The houses are minimally maintained, non-landscaped, chopped up, rentals with gravel tossed around the back yard to serve as a "parking lot". I am guessing that the ratio of chopped up rental property to single family owned/occupied homes in "Germantown" is probably at least 3 to 1 rental vs single family. Whomever proposed in earlier discussions about The Moravian that opposition was actually from rental property owners who didn't want nice new apartments competing with their rental units is probably dead on. Hohnke, Briere, Kunselman, and Anglin can generally be relied upon to favor those who shout the loudest, perhaps particularly if they are in the minority. The question is, why?
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.
Thanks for your insight, Scott... Points well made.
LiberalNIMBY
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.
If Kunselman needs time to think, can't he bring the matter up at the next meeting for reconsideration? Am I recalling the rules correctly? I think Rapundalo did this on a matter a couple of years ago. Can a reporter verify this? To me, especially coming after the Moravian vote, this vote is really a litmus test of who is steadfast in the NIMBY camp. It's interesting that Heiftje voted differently on the two projects, which tells me that he's at least looking closely at the plans. The Moravian was a close call in my opinion, but Heritage Row should have been a home run: underground parking, density you can't see, and quality restoration of great homes.
David Cahill
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.
Sorry, Tom, I don't know that much about the details of the establishment of the Old West Side Historic District. It happened in the 70s. While DeParry's disgusting City Place project was approved because it was "within zoning", if a historic district is approved prior to the lapsing of the demolition moratorium, Historic District Commission approval would also be needed for him to build. And no, DeParry can't just demolish the houses. That's exactly what the demolition moratorium prevents. To demolish something, you need a permit, and that permit will not be granted.
MB111
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.
I hope he builds City Place, despite it being the inferior project, and thumb his nose at the NIMBYs and City Hall.
5c0++ H4d13y
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.
Kelo was a case where the court upheld a public taking for private development. This shocked so many american that a wave of new laws and state constitution amendments not only undid Kelo but went further to restrict eminent domain. Although the local government won Kelo the blowback was far worse for local governments that want to do the same thing. Careful what you wish for. I could see a historical districting targeting to stop a specific development cause a series of lawsuit that in the end may weaken historical districting rather then strengthening it. Careful what you wish for.
leaguebus
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.
If I were Mr DuParry, I would get the biggest bulldozer I could rent and park it in front of one of his houses that get demolished for City Place. It would also be interesting to find out how many of the houses in Germantown are single family and how many rental houses. As we all know, competition in the rental market makes some of the uglier rental landlords upgrade their properties to compete with the clean new stuff. As long as the landlords can get a couple of council persons to act in their behalf and stifle competition, all is good.
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 9:01 a.m.
In this case the "study" may represent a public taking for private good... not the eminent domain concept of public taking for public good. The element of taking is the owner's development right, for which no compensation has been given (yet)...
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:53 a.m.
I'm trying to imagine how eminent domain/Kelo relates to historic districting in this instance. As Ca2 has blocked development by "study", it has does so in a manner as to harm itself, not benefit. For example, the benefit of increased tax revenue from higher density is lost; the benefit of improved rental housing stock is lost. The "taking" in this case does not benefit the Ca2 per se; however, it likely benefits the politicians that are up for re-election. The "taking" certainly benefits the surrounding neighborhood: many houses are rental properties that will not face competition from superior new rentals. Preservation in this case is not about preserving property facades... It's about preserving existing investment structures for rental owners... a different type of facade...
xmo
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
It's too bad that we cannot have more people enjoy life in the "workers paradise of Ann Arbor". By not allowing development, we are causing pain and suffering to those who cannot live here. Think of all of the children, the poor, the hungry, why cann't they live here? Those mean, heartless Germantown people!
Steve Hendel
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:15 a.m.
I seem to recall that when the City was debating the institution of the PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) program, the idea of which was to ring the City with a greenbelt of undevelopable land, the thought as expressed by the PDR program's advocates was that development would intensify the closer one approached the City center. OR, are we just continuing here with business as usual, i.e. the squeaking wheel (in this case a neighborhood 'association') gets the grease?
5c0++ H4d13y
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.
No I'm relating eminent domain/Kelo to historical districting.
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:04 a.m.
re: Kelo. Are you equating the eminent domain case with Heritage Row?
Tom Teague
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.
David - Thank you for answering my question. I have a follow on if you are still reading comments: Was the West Side project you mentioned already approved? I'm asking whether Council can withdraw its prior approval for a project based on conditions that didn't exist until Council took an additional action months later. Again, I'm just asking about the procedure, not the merits.
5c0++ H4d13y
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 7:54 a.m.
The blowback from Kelo was interesting. Rampant historical districting may result in a similar blowback.
foobar417
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.
Is there any reason the developer can't just bulldoze the houses starting today?
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 7:23 a.m.
Yup, they "instituted" the study district after previously determining none was warranted just a short time earlier... Nice (?) political chess move...; ) How nice? Maybe a judge will have some insight...
Marshall Applewhite
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 7:20 a.m.
Yawn....another development being blocked by a vocal minority of Ann Arbor residents.
David Cahill
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 7:13 a.m.
It's common (and perfectly legal) for a local unit of government to start to create a historic district because a particularly grotesque development is being proposed. The people's eyes are opened to the significance of an area, and they realize what might be lost if no action is taken. The Old West Side Historic District was created because such a project was proposed. Michigan's historic district law allows for this scenario. It says that a local unit of government can establish an emergency demolition moratorium while it considers setting up a historic district. That's just what our City Council did for this area.
a2grateful
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 6:47 a.m.
Let's just say that the City of Ann Arbor has craftily honed its politically-based development blocking skills since the 1980s. PUDs are fair game, as public benefit is involved, and the public therefore has significant voice. Historic "study districts" to block development are a different issue. It's a nice example of a politically-based development blocking skill that has halted "by-right" development. In this case, the proposed (and approved) project met all of the legal requirements of zoning of existing R4C zoning. NIMBY tantrums then prevailed to institute the moratorium aimed at a single development project. The City's legal perspective may be that they interpret and enforce the law to their liking and whim. Anyone that disagrees can sue them. Most people lack such resolve, stamina, and financial capability to do so. Those that take the City to court in such instances often prevail... ie. Stegeman, H & K State Street, L.L.C., Shaffran, Freed & Associates, etc.
Steve Hendel
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 6:33 a.m.
I'd be interested in some information about the Germantown Neighborhood Association: When was it formed? Did it even exist before Mr DeParry started putting forth his development proposals? How many actual active members does it have? We in Ann Arbor seem to cede a great deal of influence to organizations claiming to represent certain groups of people or certain areas without really verifying their claims.
Tom Teague
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 5:37 a.m.
Won't the City Council set up an ex post facto legal challenge by creating an historic neighborhood to block the City Place plan that Council already approved? I'm not stating an opinion about a Germantown Historic District, by the way, just asking because I don't know the answer.