How should the Ann Arbor City Council vote tonight on the conference center proposal?
It's looking like it's do or die tonight for a downtown hotel and conference center project several years in the making. Five Ann Arbor City Council members are co-sponsoring a resolution to reject a letter of intent with New York-based Valiant Partners.
The letter of intent was supposed to come back before council on April 19 and would have laid the framework for negotiations toward a complete development agreement with Valiant, which is looking to build on a piece of city-owned property known as the Library Lot.
But in recent weeks it has appeared more and more unlikely that Valiant's proposal for a 150-room hotel and 26,000-square-foot conference center would get the eight votes needed from the 11-member council when it came time to decide on a final deal.
The five co-sponsors of the resolution to end discussions with Valiant are Mayor John Hieftje and Council Members Stephen Rapundalo, Christopher Taylor, Sandi Smith and Sabra Briere.
Click here to read the resolution on tonight's agenda, and take our poll below on how you think council members should vote.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
Stuart Brown
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 6:20 a.m.
truthspeak said, "He needs to leave wiggle room for last minute discussion and he never does. I can never trust him to weigh all the facts. He needs to represent all of us!!" in reference to councilperson Anglin. It's interesting how unprincipled political operators can torture years of established precedent through specious and frivolous arguments in order to score some tactical advantage against their opponents! If individual council people are bound to represent all of the city, then why is the city apportioned into five geographical wards (most cities in Michigan have at-large elected councils)? The intellectual dishonesty arrives in the form of transposing the obligation of the council as an entire body to represent the entire city with an obligation on the part of an individual council member. It's also interesting how certain posts characterize citizen activists as being lobbyists; last I heard, a lobbyist is a paid mouthpiece by some financial interest and since when are citizen activists paid to do anything? I'm sorry certain people are disappointed and couldn't ram a multi-million dollar white elephant commitment by the city through an asleep-at-the-switch council passively sitting there dutifully considering only developer sponsored building projects cooked up by the city manager in the name of all of the citizens of Ann Arbor! Fortunately, the city of Ann Arbor has enough citizen activists like Alan Haber and Pat Lesko keeping an eye on things and who have been instrumental in killing this project. The facts are that a valuable public asset is at stake here and I applaud citizens who are willing to spend time and energy fighting for a different vision of the way things can be.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:54 p.m.
Rapundalo has been shilling the Valiant proposal since the documented secret meetings he attended with Fraser and others on council. He did this long before having all the facts. And now he sees which way the winds are blowing and he flip flops. The conference center bunch have not gone away. They're just strategizing on how to construct a council motion that allows them to bring the issue back at a later date when they think we've all gone to sleep. I'm a light sleeper.
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 8:58 p.m.
The poll is also running 2-1 in favor of NO PARK!!
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:37 p.m.
It's not a park, it's a public square. And if there's anything that the government will not allow is a public place where large groups of people could gather and protest.
David Cahill
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
The poll is running nearly 3-1 in favor of putting a steak (T-bone?) through the Valiant proposal's heart. Vox populi, vox dei.
pbehjatnia
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
lets not forget that the library lot proposal comittee voted unanimously on march 8 to proceed with this propsoal. city council then decides a week later that the committee appointed to explore this proposal obviously had no competence to make the decision afterall. that is what this is. so whose interests are being served here? hieftje, hohnke, briere... anglin.., guess they got a few calls and some signs got put up in yards and presto! suddenly we need another dead piece of prime real estate in ann arbor. we need to thinkkkkkk about more. we need to let it rot for a couple of years. and then we build yet another useless community center or low income housing project or or or... in the meantime our city is broke, our residents are going broke and our tax base has shrunk by tens of millions of dollars with no replacements in sight. but thats ok. this project will go to a different city and that city will profit from it whilst we wonder how to pay the light bill. i feel the need for meditative bike ride coming on.....
Roadman
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:35 p.m.
Counclperson Anglin's background is in construction management and is aware when projects are not feasible as proposed. I respect his views on this and prior projects. He was one who warned us of the folly of the police/courts project - and was right. This proposed development would be a disaster waiting to happen for local citizens. It would foremost increase congestion and make the area a less satisfying place to be. The vote should be to pass the proposed council resolution.
David Cahill
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
The mayor (and his co-sponsors) will be offering a revised resolution this evening. It will include this new Resolved clause: "RESOLVED, That future planning and proposals for this site shall include a robust public process".
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:35 p.m.
Who's defining "robust" Dave?
glenn thompson
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.
Mike Anglin lets his position be known. He does not hide behind secret emails or privileged communications that are not made public. He should be applauded for this, not chastized. It is surprising and disappointing how many wish to restrict others Constitutional right of free speech when they disagree with the message.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.
@tp do you have any evidence or public record of Anglin not considering any of the public commentary or that his mind is made up on every issue? Before you give political advice to someone who has twice won election, maybe you should give it a shot yourself and see if your advice is any good?
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
Nice to see that he never considers any of the public commentary or council discussion at the council meetings. Maybe he should print "Don't bother speaking at council because i have already made up my mind" on his campaign literature. Oh wait...he always spouts off talking points about open and transparent he is..yep only to the people he is beholden to. He needs to leave wiggle room for last minute discussion and he never does. I can never trust him to weigh all the facts. He needs to represent all of us!!
SalineBob
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
The proposed hotel looks like it could be pre-manufactured offsite and lowered into place with large helicopters.
aes
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 8:49 p.m.
And it looks as if even a very slight earthquake would knock it off its pedestal.
average joe
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
It looks like an old box fan about to vibrate off the edge of a table.
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
@ Terminal Here is a novel idea... Maybe Rapundalo actually looked at the facts and decided the letter of intent just wasn't as good as it could be. Maybe he made a decision after being presented with the document, after talking to the city lawyers and weighing the actual project benefits as they are currently written. That is him actually doing his job and doing it well. I am glad to see someone taking an educated stand rather than sticking to a position at all costs without looking at the details.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
Here's a novel idea, maybe you're wrong and I'm right. He should have had all the facts before he opened his mouth, but hey, he's a politician and I forgive him for that
pbehjatnia
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
Ann Arbor needs jobs. People here need jobs. All jobs. Ann Arbor is broke. We need revenue. Visitors generate revenue on so many levels. Becoming a meeting destination city would be good for Ann Arbor. We need money. I realize that many Ann Arborites do not like change or 'big city' ideas or 'too many people coming to town,' but we need money and this is no time to stick our heads in the sand and play coy. We are broke. This conference center is not a fly-by-night proposal. It is a sound opportunity that we badly need. We do not need another park. We do not need more social housing on prime real estate. We need tax base enhancing, revenue producing, job creating, business supporting ventures. If city council votes this down tonight, I will vote 'NO' on any future millage put before voters, regardless of the nature. We need jobs and money now. Not in a few years.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:32 p.m.
Then let's raise taxes.
aes
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 8:48 p.m.
Conference centers are notorious money-losers, even beautiful ones in bigger cities (e.g., Monona Lake Conference Center designed by Frank Lloyd Wright) in Madison WI. Look it up.
pbehjatnia
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
also, the resolution hieftje wants to put forth tonight ... robust process etc. i ask, what is really wrong with this process? the council bent over backwards and did flips to accomadate the multi submissions and changes for the neat north halfway house with liquor store included project. going so far as to waive setbacks. this conference center is a sound project and a risk worth the taking.
pbehjatnia
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
i hear you, however, a conference center is the destination and hotel of booking choice for meetings held there. if anything, this center could positively affect the bottom line of local hotels already established as wel as surrounding bars, restaurants and retail. not to metion the taxes......
bob
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 5:05 p.m.
We need jobs but the taxpayers in Ann Arbor were the ones taking the risk on this project....and it is a big risk. If occupancy at high end AA hotels is 64% at about $100 per night it does not seem feasible that this project could maintain 74% occupancy at $218 per night (previously reported on annarbor.com) And if by some miracle it did it would surely come at the expense of those other hotels. Therefore you would just be moving the jobs as the other hotels downsized or closed completely.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.
Rapundalo's about face on the Valiant proposal is so convenient for him. He could have done his due diligence in learning the details before he came out in favor of the Valiant proposal instead of flip flopping in the issue. There was a lot of back room, private and unrecorded talk between Fraser, Valiant and key supporters like Rapundalo before this project was announced to the public. Is Rapundalo now voting no to hide something that might come out if the Valiant proposal were to come to a lawsuit? Or is he voting no because the proposal could come back under another guise with another connected developer?
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:31 p.m.
@ Marvin I find it unethical. I would hope that the councilmembers would look at every issue with an open mind. However, Anglin, Briere and Kunselman actually participate in the groups that speak out against many issues that come before council. They help them and actually advise them on issues before the public can learn about things. Would it be ok for your congressman to head/aid a lobbying group that is for or against a specific issue that comes before congress? No that is unacceptable. They may have a position on an issue, but they don't run or aid the lobbyist. IMO, it is unacceptable and unethical for councilmembers to have alliances with these groups when the council has decision making power on the issues. Council is supposed to represent all of us, not just those who they owe loyalty to. I would hope the code of ethics for the councilmembers would contain a clause about this.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:31 p.m.
But I guess it's OK for Rapundalo and others on council and Fraser to have secret meetings with Vailiant. Council members represent their ward constituents as much if not more than the rest of the city. That's why there are wards and elections. I don't know about you but I don't get to vote for any other candidates other than the ones in my ward and the mayor.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.
Unfortunately, because Ann Arbor is a one-party city, candidates aren't vetted the same way they are in most municipalities. Which means we get extremists. Same thing happens with Republicans in the South sometimes these days - hence the nutjob who was elected governor in Alabama. Of course it's unethical what they're doing. But since there's no real accountability in Ann Arbor government, that's what we get. Which means, in the end, we're more likely to have a tent city, as some have proposed here, than a conference center.
Atticus F.
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
A park is a novel idea, and one I would love to see. But anybody who believes it would be a wonderful place to take the kids for a stroll, has no idea what type of crowd this place will attract. Imagine every person who has ever been banned from the diag (via no tresspass) gathering in one centralized public location. There will be punk rockers, long hairs, alcoholics, and panhandlers... People that I personally dont mind interacting with, but others might.
Independent_Thinker
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.
Agreed 100%
Marvin Face
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
I guess I dont know what the accepted norm is for council people campaigning on issues they will be voting on. I noticed that Mike Anglin has 4 yard signs at his home that say something like "No Conference Center" or some such thing. Is this OK? I honestly don't know what is ethical. Perhaps it's fine. Just seems slimy to me.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 9:25 p.m.
@pbewhatever. Hey everyone, Anglin isn't even mentioned in the article and the subject is the Valiant proposal. No other development option is up for a vote or even consideration. I fail to see how putting a yard sign is "pushing his view on a private forum". His front yard space is visible to the public, his position on council is public, he doesn't support the Valiant proposal which so far is the only "serious" proposal being allowed for consideration. @tp What could be more transparent than a yard sign expressing your thoughts on an issue? There are a lot of really anonymous posters lately and almost every single one of them has a weird handle and short posting history. Whats up with that?
pbehjatnia
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
i dont think its fine or ethical. anglin is pushing his view on a private forum. that is not fine.
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Aren't the councilmembers supposed to be discussing things in an open discussion. Aren't they supposed to be listening to public commentary? What if something was brought up that he did not think about before? Would he be able to change his mind at the last minute and actually consider the new information legitimately? Signs in his yard just make it look like there is no turning back regardless of the discussion. I understand that people may be set in their decision, but they need to allow some wiggle room if they want to change their mind. A public statement with the signs makes that impossible. Anglin likes to preach about the OMA and transparency but he just never practices what he preaches. This just makes him a hypocrite.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.
Everyone knows where Mike stands on the conference center. Why would a yard sign telling his constituents what his views are be a conflict of interest or an ethical lapse?
jdawg7214
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.
Vote "That building is too ugly. Try again."
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
No park!! Develop SOMETHING, but not a park in this location!
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3 p.m.
@ Bill but i do like the model boat pond idea. That at least would be something unique and a draw to bring people to it!
truthspeak
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
It is a waste of space at that location when we have other parks that are walkable from downtown. There is also talk of the allen creek greenway that would also be turned into a park. This space should be used for some type of development. The question is what should be built, not should something be built. A park at the library lot would be underused due to all the luxury park space we have throughout the city. If we did not have so much other park space, then maybe a park here would work, but since we are already have too much park space that we can't afford right now, we do not need to add to our non-taxable land. Sometimes politicians need to say what is best and vote against the wishes of the people who just care about their selfish wants instead of the public needs. IMO the majority of the public want something built there and no park.
Wolf's Bane
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.
Why not a park? Got something against green? I say a park now!!! I also would like to see a model boat pond similar to what they have in New York's Central Park built; I would name my first model boat after you, truthspeak.
Urban Sombrero
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
Annarbor.com, I hate your new poll system. I can't see what the percentages are, nor how many total votes were cast. Nitpicky, I know, but it's nice to see actual hard numbers. I'm glad the City Council (and the mayor) seem to have their heads on straight. This was a losing proposition for our city, from the ugly nature of the building to the possibility of the taxpayers having to bail it out. I have no real opinions on what should go in there, I'd need to see what options come up, I guess. However, I do think the public should have a say in what's ultimately put there.
Dog Guy
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
Enjoy this internet poll. It is the only vote the city hall gang will ever allow on spending future taxes.
Dr. I. Emsayin
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.
I wonder how the people in the condos next to Seva feel about the project.
bob
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.
@sh1 does Seva like the wind tunnel that was created by that building being built on the property line...and the loss of viable seating on the deck?
sh1
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
@voter, Seva is very happy with the condos next door and say they have increased business.
nowayjose
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.
I know I dont care
voter
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.
I wonder how Seva feels about the condo project next door taking all their light from the east? Bet no one cared about neighbors when that project went in.
Awakened
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.
Why soes it matter how they vote? It's not their money at risk.
Terminal
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
If Valiant gets what they want, taxpayers, including council members, could be at risk. If the proposed conference center fails, the City, meaning all of us in Ann Arbor, could end up owning the conference center and paying all it's related costs including loss of tax revenue.
Jeffrey
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.
What good is this article? Where's the "Why are they rejecting it?" As for the poll, where's the option to accept the proposal? All the options are reject.
Aaron Wolf
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.
It was just a poorly worded poll. They wrote everything in negative by saying "reject proposal" and "vote down the rejection resolution", just bad writing. And they should have been more clear to explain why it isbeing rejected. Here's the reason it is being rejected: the disgustingly ugly design offended enough people that citizens who otherwise wouldn't have cared got really anxious about financial and other concerns (which may be legitimate anyway). If they had proposed a beautiful design, then far more people would be defending it even if it was financially risky. Aesthetics do matter.
Atticus F.
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
No need to respond to this poster. He's obviously a paid 'shill' blogger. They come out of the woodwork in support of these projects (during the approval process) then you never hear from them again.
sh1
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
The resolution is to end the contract with Valiant, so voting it down would mean continuing with the project as is (option 3).
Wolf's Bane
Mon, Apr 4, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
@ Jeffery, 5 city counsel members, including the Mayor have already declared that they'll vote against this conference center proposal. A2.com had actually posted this news item earlier last week. I think the goal now is to determine what process the city should follow on deciding what to put there and whether it requires (the public's approval).