Q&A: Noah Hall talks about doing battle with the city of Ann Arbor
Noah Hall, an attorney for the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, stands in front of the city-owned site on South Fifth Avenue where the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is building an underground parking garage.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
For the last year and some change, Noah Hall has battled it out with Ann Arbor city leaders over a $50 million underground parking structure being built on city-owned property along South Fifth Avenue downtown.
"It's a pretty expensive project and it never seemed particularly well thought-out," he said. "But if there's one thing that's clear throughout this whole process, the city really, really wants this parking structure. They want it more than they've probably wanted almost any other project in recent memory."
As an attorney for the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, Hall last year accused members of the Ann Arbor City Council of secretly discussing the project via e-mail — instead of deliberating in the public eye. A Freedom of Information Act request he fired off to city hall last year turned up copies of dozens of e-mails exchanged among council members that caused residents to question what discussions they're not privy to when issues are being decided.
The City Council responded to the public outcry in September by agreeing that council members no longer can e-mail each other during meetings. But in a lawsuit settlement reached last week, Hall is asking council members to go one step further and use their city government e-mail accounts from now on when discussing city business, even outside of meetings.
Council members don't have to comply with Hall's recommendation, but the terms of the settlement agreement mandate that they publicly consider it sometime in April.
Hall sat down with AnnArbor.com to talk about the settlement, what he's asking of the City Council, and his thoughts on the parking structure project.
Q: Do you think there has been an attempt on the part of council members to do business outside of the public eye? Or is this rule just a good idea?
A: We learned through the city's responses to our FOIA requests that some council members were regularly using commercial or personal e-mail accounts to communicate with other council members. There's nothing illegal or wrong about that. The concern, though, is that if council members are using their private or commercial e-mail accounts to communicate with each other, there's no way for the city's staff and the city attorney's office to manage all those records so that they can produce them in response to a FOIA request.
We saw going back to the deliberations over the parking structure that some council members were using private e-mails and we didn't think that much of it at the time. But around October of 2009, when the City Council was deliberating over what to do on Argo Dam, we got an e-mail that had about eight of the council members deliberating, all using their private, commercial, non-city e-mail accounts. I can't tell you with any certainty they were attempting to avoid public openness, but it sure looked like that. If council members are regularly communicating with each other with non-government e-mails, then there is no way to ensure that those e-mails would be produced for a FOIA request.
Q: Do you feel like this puts council members in a position where they either have to comply with your request or shame themselves publicly?
A: All we're asking the City Council to do in the settlement agreement is publicly consider the issue. And then if in a public open meeting they want to say, 'No, we think it's fine for us to keep e-mailing each other with our private or commercial e-mail accounts,' go for it. We basically just want them to publicly consider the issue and let the public know what they're doing.
Q: Does the settlement agreement resolve all of your concerns, including those calling for an environmental study?
A: The short answer is yes. Our major objective in this matter from the day we got involved was basically for the city to treat the parking structure as an environmental issue, and study it in a public and open process. Steve Bean, the chairman of the Environmental Commission, Â asked the City Council to study this with more detail and look at the environmental aspects. They didn't do it then and this was in February 2009. Then the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center on behalf of the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council sent a letter in April or May. We sent the city a letter in May 2009, three months before the suit got filed — a short two-page letter with basically four or five points of what to do to resolve our concerns and it was to do a study. In a way that seems to be sort of typical with cities, they didn't say no, they didn't say yes. Just nothing happened. Really all we wanted was a study and now we got it.
Q: Do you think city officials didn't want to do the study because they were afraid it would hurt the chances of the parking structure happening?
A: The environmental study does not say not to do the project. That might have been their concern, but the environmental study does not at all say not to do the project. It's actually a misconception about environmental law. Environmental law doesn't tell you not to do something. It tells you if you do something, here's what the environmental impact would be. But you still might want to do it. I mean, we build highways and bridges and factories and we know that they have an environmental impact, but we say OK. The best explanation I come up with is that it's not that they didn't want to do it, it's just that they weren't going to get around to doing it until they had a reason.
Q: Does it make sense to do it now that the underground parking structure project is under way?
A: Ann Arbor is constantly struggling with issues like parking, transportation and transit and I think that this study will help inform future decisions. This project moved forward through the DDA and the city's environmental staff never had any formal engagement or input. A lot of what we wanted was just for the city as an entity to engage its own environmental staff in this decision and that's what the settlement agreement now requires, so I think it'll be useful. I think it will help the public understand the ramifications of the project, the environmental impact of the project.
And I think some of the aspects of the study — even putting aside the environmental stuff — are just good management things to know like how much parking you have, how much parking you're adding, what it's replacing. It was very frustrating all along on this case that we could never get from the city or the DDA real numbers. I think there's a lot of benefit to just doing that data collection.
Q: Do you think there's a need for the parking structure?
A: I've never really understood or seen a rational, compelling explanation for this project. I have seen, at various times, this project sold for several different and often contradictory purposes. They told the downtown merchants, 'This parking will be there for your customers and restaurant-goers and shoppers.' The downtown merchants said, 'Great, that's what we need.' At other times they said, 'Oh, no, this parking is just replacing other parking that we're going to close so that we can go from surface lots to underground parking.' OK, but that's a different story than the other one. Now it's becoming clear that this project may be needed to provide parking for whatever hotel concept they want to build on top. They also said this project was needed to help lure Google for expansion. Our problem, of course, is that you can't promise the same parking space to four different people, so I'm kind of as curious as anybody else in town as to who's actually going to be benefitting from the structure.
I think underground parking is a laudable new-urbanism goal but it is incredibly expensive — more expensive than above ground parking. These are literally the most expensive parking spaces anyone's ever going to come across. I know the DDA has tried to minimize the cost through various calculations, but the bottom line is it's $50 million and 600-some odd parking spaces, which is actually only a net increase at the site of about 400 or 500. So you're really spending almost $100,000 per parking space. That's a pretty expensive parking space.
Q: But won't it pay for itself with income from users?
A: That's another thing that's a little bit odd. I don't think that they've shown that this structure will pay for itself. But the parking system, as a system, they say will maintain a clean balance sheet. But there are some really big assumptions in there. One is that they're raising rates. I think there's a fair concern that if you raise rates you're going to suppress demand. That's what the downtown merchants are always concerned about, that if you raise rates people won't come to downtown. They'll go out to the mall instead. But the DDA's assumption for the payback of this is that they will raise rates and people will still come park there and it will pay for itself over time. I hope they're right because otherwise the city's on the hook for the bond.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
brad
Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 10:38 a.m.
@Mick: As a practical matter, comparing health care to parking is irrelevant. Ill leave it to ideologues to debate your other points. @townie: an RFP is a design competition; a town square is a requirement; maybe they shouldve required a residential building, but the only apartment building dropped out. The new utilities have more capacity which will support future growth. It might be a surprise, but I agree with most of Joans comments. For example, parking demand is up this year; up 2.5% last year; up 6% the year before. Also, I dont think price increases will affect demand. Workers, students, and visitors looking for unique entertainment/shopping are the bulk of the users. None of these groups have real alternatives. However, the project isn't perfect. The DDA doesnt have money for other major projects for a few years; it will spend $50k less on alternative transportation and $100k (50%) less on housing next year; last, the DDAs rainy day fund is less able to manage future risks.
Mick52
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:48 p.m.
I think parking should be free. We have a constitutional right to park our cars for free, just as much as health care is a right. Since Michigan is a voter initiative state, I think we should circulate petitions calling for repeal of parking fees and parking fines in Ann Arbor. No, lets call it "reform." Democrats like reform. Rather than a fee for parking you can park for some period of time and you only get a ticket if you go over. But the ticket will be no more than $5. And yes, Ms. Lowenstein, I go to Krogers because they built a parking lot. Its free parking. I go to downtown for only one thing, to get my hair cut, but I am trying to convince them to move to somewhere with free parking.
townie
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.
I'm glad Lowenstein quoted Calthorpe. Not sure what dimension she inhabits, but as I read it, the quoted passage describes everything the DDA is NOT doing on Fifth Ave. (except the $100k per space structure itself). No design competition, no town square (eliminated by the committee very early), and no residential development. Lowenstein claims that the structure fights urbans sprawl (impossible without a residential component), yet she supports fellow DDA board member Newcombe Clark's urban sprawl project, The Moravian, two blocks outside of downtown and outside the DDA boundary. Stormwater detention, new water mains, and new electrical systems? The water mains and underground electrical lines are only being replaced because the underground structure is being built and they have to be rerouted. The water main work will reroute water service away from the proposed future expansion (!) planned for taking this structure under Fifth Ave. Plus, it will provide increased supply for a future development on top of the structure, on the taxpayer's dime. This infrastructure work would normally be paid for by a private developer as part of his/her project budget. The stormwater detention is a requirement of all new development. The pedestrian improvements on Fifth and Division were meant to be separate from the parking structure and could have been funded without bonds. Now they have been delayed two years while the structure is built, making Division and Fifth less pedestrian friendly then ever. Instead of building things on speculation with public money, or supporting projects outside of downtown that will ultimately soften the downtown housing market, the DDA should be making efforts to help approved downtown projects that are currently stalled, like City Apartments, get financed and built.
belboz
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:34 p.m.
43560 sf per acre. Assume 375sf per parking spot. That is 116 spots per acre, or over $5 million per acre. Is that what land is worth downtown? Is Ann Arbor going to profit enough to spend $50k per spot? I mean in parking money, not intangeables like "more shoppers."
Joan Lowenstein
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 11:01 a.m.
More information about the 5th Avenue project: Planning: The Calthorpe process was the most extensive public planning exercise Ann Arbor has ever done. In the report written from that community vision, here's what it says about the central core of downtown: "Redevelop the library parking lot. This lot might be appropriate for a design competetion and should include a central 'town square,' underground parking, and residential uses." The report goes on to say that the city should create a "framework for the transformation of vacant and underutilized properties." That's just what the DDA is doing on S. Fifth Ave. Paying for the project: In July 2009 parking rates were increased. Every month since that time the number of hourly parking patrons has increased when compared to the previous year. During the 20 years or so that the construction bond is being paid off, the net revenues from other public parking will compensate for any shortfall of revenues from this project because the DDA operates public parking as a system. This underground structure has been designed with a minimum 75-year useful life, and will last even longer with regular maintenance. As an example, the construction debt for the Ann Ashley and Liberty Square structures has been paid off. In 2008/09, the parking revenues from those structures contributed almost $2 million to the system. It would be a great world if everyone rode the bus, biked, or walked downtown. Right now, they don't, and even "green" businesses demand parking for their employees to locate downtown. Even "green"-thinking patrons of downtown businesses drive downtown because they're shlepping kids or it's raining. In order to grow, we have to make accommodations for all kinds of transportation, including cars.
Joan Lowenstein
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:46 a.m.
I am a member of the DDA and I'd like to clear up some misconceptions here. 1. Environmental study: The city's Environmental Commission never made a request to the city. Steve Bean, as an individual, did. The many respected environmental groups in this area did not join in. 2. Study feasibility: The data sought is probably impossible to obtain. How will anyone know if more people are driving downtown just to park in the underground structure? Do you go to Kroger because they built a parking lot there? 3. Real data: The hundreds of pages of data the DDA made available to Mr. Hall disprove the contention that, 27 years after the last new public parking structure was built and after 2.4 million square feet of new private development, there's no more need for parking. 4. Need: Mr. Hall is wrong -- you can and should sell the same parking multiple times. The best practice is to reuse the same parking space several times during the day and week. Second, the project expense is for a major redevelopment -- it includes 3 new 12-inch water mains, all new electric system, and extensive pedestrian improvements. At least 25% of the project has nothing to do with parking. The parking portion is about $57,000 per space, some of which is necessary to make the structure as sustainable as possible. For example, 100% of the stormwater from the site will be detained. Most important, the project will foster growth in the downtown and that avoids the suburban sprawl that most Ann Arbor citizens oppose. I will add more comments in another balloon.
glynda
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:08 a.m.
It was enlightening to read the story in April's Observer about the possible conference center. The companies proposing to build hotels above the parking structure ask the city to build the conference center (and thus take on the losses from it). And the benefit of all this to the citizens is???
katie
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:12 a.m.
1. Cut back on police and fire services. Cut school services. 2. Council members: Have secret communications, far from the public eye. 3. Build an unneeded, expensive, ugly, project, the need for which was never demonstrated, the costs for which will certainly "devolve" to the taxpayer. 4. Seek to add $ in the form of a city income tax/millages to pay for necessary services fire, police, schools. 5. Run challengers ala (Kunselman vs Greden) for current city council members who voted in favor of this project: REPLACE THEM! I don't care if we never have a parking structure. The conference center would never be built if I had my way. I do want the police, fire, and schools to be paid for with my limited tax dollars.
Awakened
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7 a.m.
$100,000 per parking space? No problem. Just raise fees and taxes and move on to the next boondoggle. Unless the citizens of Ann Arbor wake up....
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:42 a.m.
Except perhaps for the U of M structure behind the intersection of State and Liberty, I don't believe I've ever been unable to find parking in downtown Ann Arbor. I can't even remember being unable to find parking during an "art fair". How was this need for parking justified? I don't quite get what an underground structure of any sort that's in the middle of an existing city has to do with the environment. It doesn't look like trees or grasslands are being destroyed, etc. Maybe leaking oil from cars or something? In any case, the structure sounds like a huge waste of money especially with the police and fire departments seriously understaffed. Public safety FAIL.
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:35 a.m.
Mr. Hall's comments are on target and mirror some I made on my blog last summer:Digging Ourselves into a Hole. He mentions the intent of council and DDA to build this structure at almost literally any cost. I hope that this does not also extend to the hotel and conference center above that the structure appears intended to support.
yohan
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:33 a.m.
...as the Stadium bridge crumbles...
belboz
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:17 a.m.
Another example of wasteful city spending. Between this and the city hall addittion, they have managed to spend over $100 million dollars with ZERO increase in service to the taxpayer. Not one member of city government should be re-elected this fall. What a disgrace.