University of Michigan expansion: Buying land in Ann Arbor raises questions about tax base
An aerial image looking north on central campus in Ann Arbor taken on Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2013.
Melanie Maxwell I AnnArbor.com
- Map of University of Michigan property acquisition in Ann Arbor since 1999
- Mayor to ask: Will University of Michigan compensate Ann Arbor for lost property taxes?
University of Michigan expansion in Ann Arbor means two things: the university is prospering and the city will lose valuable tax revenue for every piece of real estate acquired to support the growth.
The school has acquired 29 properties in Ann Arbor throughout the past 13 years, according to U-M records.
U-M officials say the university's expanding footprint helps businesses and allows it to employ more people and strengthen Ann Arbor's economy - but city officials say it's hard to ignore the impact on the city when acres of land go off the tax rolls.
As a public university, U-M is exempt from paying property taxes.
U-M in Ann Arbor
Key figures
- 2.39 square miles: The amount of land U-M owns in the city of Ann Arbor
- 29: The number of properties U-M has purchased in Ann Arbor since 1999
- 34 million: The amount of square footage U-M's Ann Arbor buildings comprise
- $5.1 billion: The book value of U-M's Ann Arbor properties
On the one hand, the $108 million purchase was assurance the property would not sit vacant for years as Pfizer sought a buyer. As thousands lost their jobs, U-M promised the site would facilitate the creation of hundreds of new positions. Yet the purchase meant 4.8 percent of the city's tax base was taken away. Pfizer paid the city $4.1 million in taxes in 2008.
"The truth is we want people there, but is the boost to the businesses across the street significant enough to offset that [loss in revenue]?" city council member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, asked recently.
With ebbs and flows, similar debates have played out for decades as the university purchases property in Ann Arbor.
The university owns 2.39 of the city's 28.55 square miles as of October 2012, according to city assessor Dave Petrak. That's about 8.4 percent of the city's land area.
University of Michigan is expanding its Institute of Social Research building, located at 426 Thompson St, in Ann Arbor, using property it has acquired since 1999.
Courtney Sacco I AnnArbor.com
The figures are more dramatic when considering downtown Ann Arbor. The university owns 22 percent of the downtown acreage, or 42 acres out of the 191 acres that aren't considered public right of way, according to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.
Of the 29 properties U-M has purchased in Ann Arbor since 1999, 27 are downtown.
"It's inevitable that if the university continues to purchase property, that is going to have an effect on the city," said Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje. "If you keep buying a few properties every year, they add up."
Strategic growth
Downtown acquisitions are strategic: Since 1999, most have been clustered near Wall Street; the area that transitions the Old Fourth Ward to health system property near Glen and Ann; along South Division Street between Packard and East William streets; and near the law school.
"We very seldom purchase property," U-M Chief Financial Officer Timothy Slottow said in an interview after the school's Board of Regents approved the $1.5 million purchase of the Blimpy Burger property and adjacent parcel at 551 S. Division St. in December.
"When we do purchase property, it is for a very specific mission-driven purpose or it is very strategically located," Slottow continued. "It's always nice when you're the size that we are if you have some opportunity to build a building on your core site, and we are basically land-constrained on central campus."
An aerial image looking down over a section of S. Division between E. Jefferson and E. Madison taken on Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2013. U-M purchased the Blimpy Burger property and neighboring parcel, located at 549 S. Division St., for $1.5 million in December.
Melanie Maxwell I AnnArbor.com
The school has also embarked in billions of dollars worth of construction in the past decade, building a 1.1 million square-foot children's hospital, the 10-story North Quad residence hall and learning complex, a state-of-the-art business school and multiple parking garages, among dozens of other projects.
In a state filing, the university reported owning buildings totaling 33.56 million square feet within the city in 2011, according to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. Slottow has reported that, as of June 2012, the Ann Arbor campus comprises 34 million square feet of building area.
In 2004, U-M reported owning buildings totaling 26.85 million square feet.
In Ann Arbor Township, U-M reported owning buildings totaling about 611,000 square feet in 2011, up from the 441,900 reported in 2004. Throughout greater Ann Arbor, U-M owns 3,244 acres of land.
The school's Ann Arbor properties are worth $5.1 billion, according to U-M spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald.
The city of Ann Arbor's tax base is less than that. In fiscal 2011-12, the city had a taxable value of $4.68 billion, according to the Michigan Department of Treasury, and collected $76.5 million in property taxes.
Is it sustainable?
"I've grown up in Ann Arbor and I've seen the changes over the years - and while they are small, incremental purchases, just in my lifetime they add up pretty substantially. My concern is not so much with the short-term," said council member Stephen Kunselman, D- Ward 3, who wants the university to focus on "building up" instead of building out.
"What does that mean for the future of Ann Arbor if the university keeps growing? What is it going to be 150 years from now? It's going to be the city of the University of Michigan."
John Hieftje says University of Michigan is reducing Ann Arbor's tax base when it buys property in the city.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Roughly 40 percent of the city's land is non-taxable, and the two largest tax-exempt entities are city parks and U-M, said Hieftje. The city has no estimate for the revenue it loses due to U-M's tax exempt status, but the amount is well into the eight-figure range.
Hieftje says the "constant drip" of taxable properties becoming non-taxable will continue to whittle away at the city's revenue base, possibly creating future hardships for the city.
"It's really obvious that the university brings great things to our city: jobs, the arts..." he said. "But it's also obvious that the university doesn't pay taxes, and that's just the way it is at public universities. If they continue to purchase properties the tax base will be reduced."
'One is good for the other'
University officials contend the school's growth, and subsequent effect on the city's finances, is minimized by the economic stability U-M brings to Ann Arbor by providing employment and admitting thousands of students, which in turn boosts local housing, restaurants and businesses.
"As the university grows, so do the businesses, so does the housing market, so does Ann Arbor. One is good for the other," U-M regent Andrea Fischer Newman said in an interview after a December Board of Regents meeting.
"Arguably, if there wasn't a university here, the community might not be here that the university supports."
From 2002 to 2012 the university added 9,200 jobs in Ann Arbor. U-M has roughly 41,700 full-time employees in Ann Arbor.
Though the lion's share of property taxes are shouldered by single-family homeowners, many of those homeowners are employed by the university.
"The presence of the university really does buffer our economy in rough times," offered city council member Sally Peterson, D-2nd Ward.
Using figures from the Michigan Department of Treasury, U-M community relations director Jim Kosteva compared the fluctuations in Ann Arbor's taxable value during and after the economic downturn with the taxable values of properties of comparable communities in the state.
From 2008 to 2012 eight cities —including Dearborn, Farmington Hills, Livonia, Sterling Heights, Troy, Warren, Lansing and Grand Rapids— on average lost 23 percent of their taxable value. Ann Arbor, on the other hand, lost 4.4 percent of its taxable value.
Meanwhile, before the recession, from 2001 to 2008 those eight communities had a 25 percent growth rate in their taxable value. During that period Ann Arbor experienced a 43 percent growth rate.
Jim Kosteva
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"There's a relationship there," said Kosteva. "When an employer in the area does have that kind of job growth it's going to have the positive effect that it's had in terms of local property values."
He added: "The university consistently demonstrates its value as a significant asset to the community."
When compared with four other college towns in Michigan, Ann Arbor fared well. While it lost 4.4 percent of its taxable value from 2008 to 2012, Kalamazoo and East Lansing lost between 12 and 15 percent of their taxable value. Mt. Pleasant and Marquette both gained value, 2.3 percent and 11.2 percent respectively.
In a few cities, tax-exempt universities will offer municipalities annual payments in lieu of property taxes. For example, Brown University, which owns a physical plant worth more than $1 billion, offers Providence, R.I., a $4 million annual voluntary payment and has committed to give the city another $31.5 million over the course of 11 years. Harvard and Boston University voluntarily give Boston multimillion dollar payments each year.
Over the past two decades, city officials have considered formally asking U-M to offer voluntary compensation in lieu of property taxes. Those discussions have been fruitless, involved parties say.
'Support each other better'
Briere says that once the university began consistently expanding about 25 years ago, beginning when James Duderstadt was president of the school from 1988 to 1996, tensions between the school and the city increased.
"The biggest issue is the university responds to a completely different set of laws than the rest of us, and because the university doesn't have to follow the city of Ann Arbor's resolutions, they only have to deal with Ann Arbor when they are using a right-of-way," Briere said.
"We can try to hold the most ridiculous things up as leverage, like how big an awning is, but it's terrible leverage. It's not something that makes anybody feel proud."
The University of Michigan plans to build a parking garage in this parking lot, pictured here on February 8, across the street form the Kellogg Eye Center on Wall Street.
Courtney Sacco I AnnArbor.com
Though acknowledging tensions, Hieftje said the current town-gown relationship in Ann Arbor is at an all-time high.
"Historically speaking, the city and university relationship is probably more cordial right now than it's ever been," he said, explaining that the staff of the entities work well together. He also noted collaboration between the city and university on economic development and cited Ann Arbor SPARK as an example.
"This is a whole new level of cooperation that exists today, [developed] in the last ten years or so, that wasn't ever here before." Hieftje said. "The university has really stepped up to the plate on tech transfer and working to keep businesses here."
Petersen said there exists "a lack of a cooperative relationship between the city and the university at the highest levels. Hieftje agreed said such tensions "are a given" and have existed throughout the university and city's history.
"There’s probably some resentment among those in the city toward the university because they don’t have to pay taxes and they don't have to abide by our local ordinances," Peterson said.
Such resentment rises to the surface when residents feel helpless to stay changes to their neighborhoods due to university development.
A group of residents that live along Wall Street, for example, are frustrated by the imminent construction of a parking garage near their homes. Since 1999 the university has purchased seven properties along the Wall Street corridor in Lower Town and added an addition to the Kellogg Eye Center located on the street. University master plans indicate the eventual construction of two garages on that corridor.
Residents who live along Plymouth Road, near the intersection of Huron Parkway, were recently angered when the university installed a 2.4-acre solar panel array without first notifying the nearby community or holding a public meeting.
"We are very, very fortunate to have them here," city council member Jane Lumm, an independent representing the city's 2nd Ward, said of the university.
"There's no doubt about it and I won't dispute that one iota. But by the same token, there are so many ways we could support each other better."
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
averageworker
Mon, Feb 25, 2013 : 3:28 a.m.
Here is an idea- all the commuters (employees who dont' live in AA) get charged anywhere between 20-100 dollars a month for parking; in structures that are taking up spaces in the city that has no property tax. The city should have access to that money- say, 50%; why should the U gobble up all the profits?? And all that the U brings to the city? Believe me I grew up here, and after living away for 5-6 years, coming back I realize, the U doesn't offer THAT much.
Steffetta
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 12:20 a.m.
Since there is no city income tax, hiring more people doesn't support the city the way property taxes do. And whether a restaurant serves 50 or 100 people in a day, they still pay the same property taxes. I'm not even hearing it. Yes there is good and bad, but the bottom line is bad, period.
Roger Kuhlman
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 9:50 p.m.
How is UM emphasis on constant expansion consistent with behaving in an ecologically responsible way? Maybe the recent claims by the President of UM that UM is into ecological 'sustainability' is just a bunch of stuff and nonsense.
Cheryl Weber
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 6:51 a.m.
A2 actually IS a city where people WANT to work and live. I n spite of someones suggestion that it COULD be. People pay quite a premium to do so. People who work in A2 but, do not earn enough to live there travel a good distance to do so. They also pay a lot to park in the fair city. I do not care to live in Ann Arbor, or to commute to work there. I have though. Having an imbalance of Tax generating property to tax exempt ones is a challenge faced by many municipalities, including Ypsilanti.
Jay Thomas
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 4:17 p.m.
Pay whom? A U of M owned parking garage?
JBK
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:52 a.m.
The solution is simple: 1) Non resident Payroll tax for people working in A2 - 1% 2) Hotel/restaurant / bar tax - 1 % (Detroit, Chicago, NY, etc. now use it among others......... All of this would more than offset anything UM does not pay. For the record, I own a home in A2 and pay 4k for my summer taxes alone!
kuriooo
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:39 a.m.
So again, I'd like to know why the mayor / city council and U of M top leaders aren't sitting down together to discuss the situation. I think most posters would agree that it is in the best interests of the city and the U to both address this as a long-term problem, as the future of both the city and the U are closely linked.
Seasoned Cit
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:33 a.m.
Here we go again.. I believe there is a State law that says that cities are to be reimbursed by State Universities etc to cover fire and police services....and that the Sate has infrequently or never paid out anything to Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Detroit etc. While we're worried about University owned property not paying taxes...shouldn't we be concerned about City owned property.. (even Parks and Recreation )? Not only do these properties not bring in any tax income...they actually cost the City to maintain. Have all the folks who want the "top of the hole" made into a public park... showed how much more that park will cost than if a commercial taxpaying structure is built there?
JRW
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:28 a.m.
"U-M officials say the university's expanding footprint helps businesses and allows it to employ more people and strengthen Ann Arbor's economy - but city officials say it's hard to ignore the impact on the city when acres of land go off the tax rolls." Most of the UM employees don't live in AA. Only about 30% of employees actually live in AA, so the benefits of all the employment expansion that UM likes to tout, is limited. The UM may be strengthened by more and more expansion and more employment, but AA gets the traffic congestion, increasing numbers of parking lots in the city, and decreased property taxes. Sure, a few employees eat at some area restaurants at lunchtime during the week, but that hardly compensates for lost property taxes. Most of the "benefit" to the city from UM is from students, not UM employees. The UM touts the arts and musical events, etc., but once again, these venues are here because of the students, not the employees. While a few employees might attend a concert now and then, or eat in a restaurant in the evening, the vast majority head out of town at 5 pm. I doubt very few even stop at a grocery store on their way out of AA, given the congestion on major arteries starting at about 4 pm every day. If some of the student high rises currently being built were designed as multi-generational complexes instead of student warehouses, perhaps more employees would consider living in the city, if the costs were more reasonable and not ($1000+ per bedroom per month). Or if property taxes weren't sky high, they might consider city living. But AA has turned into Disneyland for rich students with little "affordable" housing for adults and families.
southyoop
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 7:14 a.m.
Ann Arbor would be a wasteland if not for UM.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:51 a.m.
It should be noted that the obvious subtext of the "don't tax U of M" crowd is an impossible either/or argument which says: "Either the city leaves hands off U of M or U of M will leave." NOT GONNA HAPPEN and isn't even on the table of either side. The cost of moving U of M to another town is literally incalculable. It couldn't be done - period. Perhaps more alarming is the attitude of a few adults who take no offense at having to bow to U of M's rules in the area of ADULT life which IS guaranteed and protected by the U.S. AND Michigan Constitution. It's not U of M's property - it's PUBLIC property by definition. Adults are therefore exempt for U of M's rules for subadults. One reason for that is the current expansion of U of M into what formerly was privately owned property. It's getting difficult for an adult to AVOID traversing U of M's territory and becoming subject to U of M's rules and policies - ALL of which apply to any member of the public visiting or transiting their properties. And no one has taken the time to tally all of the costs & inconveniences U of M's presence here creates. In public discourse, we see only one complaint at a time and those are always dismissed as being trivial (regardless of any actual harm done). We should keep in mind also how we think of public officials who vote themselves raises so large that they make millionaires of themselves (are you hearing this Mary Sue, Brady, Dave and all top U of M admin. people?). Is this a good picture ?- When these people are setting their own rules, giving themselves raises and at the same time forcing property taxes up for Ann Arbor home owners? Oh, and we've got to include the cost to parents paying U of M's tuition, don't we? U of M: has the largest endowment and charges among the highest tuition fees. So it IS about money, after all - OURS AND OURS. So what's so unreasonable about negotiating an annual fee now?
Justin Altman
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:38 a.m.
Students are not "subadults" If you find a UM regulation that is unconstitutional, please disobey it. You either set a precedence for the law not being enforced, or you can challenge it to the MI Sup Ct., who will decide on the constitutionality. And the money is not "OURS" or yours - it was already taken from you by the institution call the city or the state. They aren't "you" or "us" - they have their own goals and motivations, and don't give a crap about you.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:19 a.m.
No, the U isn't going anywhere. But it has made Ann Arbor relatively recession-proof in a state that got socked multiple times since the decline of the auto industry began. Is this type of emotional "let's change the rules because they can't do anything about it" rhetoric an appropriate response?
jpud
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:48 a.m.
If the city placed a $10,000 per year tax on luxury box sporting tickets in the football stadium, it would raise $850,000 dollars. Many of these are owned by corporations or out of town millionaires who fly in for the games. It would be a win-win situation, they would get to write it off as a business expense and Ann Arbor would help defray the costs of supporting the academic industrial complex with revenue from the business done in the athletic auxilliary unit.
15crown00
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:10 a.m.
so try to tax the U and see how far you get.not gonna happen in this lifetime.that's the bad part about being a university town.try to imagine what Ann Arbor would be like without the U.SCARY ISN'T IT? I dare say the city wouldn't be what it is without Uni M.S you hjave to live with it..
kittybkahn
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:34 p.m.
Did the University chip in on the Stadium Blvd. bridge? If not, they should have considering how much U-M football and other sports fans use it.
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:45 a.m.
I'm betting that the bridge is open 365 days a year and football is 7 days a year. Are you suggesting that the 7/365 fraction of traffic is a substantial portion of the total traffic or isn't greatly dominated by the 358/365 fraction? In addition, on those 7 days, the bridge, presumably, is not closed to non-football traffic so the argument against you is even stronger.
15crown00
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:13 a.m.
agree but on the other hand how many people use the bridge every day to commute to and from work or to go shopping,or to do many other things whether these activities are in connection with the U or not.
nutfarm
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:22 p.m.
Wow what a big insightful article!! What else is new as U of M owns more of AA every year with little in return. Leave it to the butt kissers on city council so you can pay more in taxes every year.
15crown00
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:19 a.m.
price you pay for being the town in which a large university has it's main campus.
Ian
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:16 p.m.
Ann Arbor doesn't exist without the university, so... I don't really see the argument.
jcj
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:46 a.m.
My argument is take away the services Ann Arbor provides the U and the U does not exist.
Basic Bob
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:56 p.m.
The argument is that they consume services that the city must provide. While businesses and residents pay for these services, the university and hospital do not. In an ideal world, the university and hospital attract enough new businesses and residents to offset the cost of their services. But even these new businesses and residents must pay extra for the 40,000 students and thousands of employees that occupy Ann Arbor most of the year. That's why many of us have chosen to live outside of the city. We are not freeloaders, but we couldn't afford the burden of property taxes imposed by the free services to the university and hospital.
Lou Belcher
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:46 p.m.
A Tale of Two Cities.....A Historical Perspective. At the age of nineteen (1959) I came to Ann Arbor for my last two years of college from Battle Creek (home town also for our present mayor and governor). Then, both A2 and BC were of the same size ...a population of 40,000. BC was an industrial powerhouse for its size....Kellogg, Post, General Mills, Oliver, Clark Equipment, Michigan Carton, and many others. Fast forward....A2 is a wealthy city by any formula with a population of 115,000; BC is now 35,000; is slum ridden, ( I cannot even bear to visit my old home as it is too depressing) , and with a dead central core. All of the BC companies mentioned before are either greatly downsized or gone and the BC property tax base is a shadow of itself. My point is that property tax values are not as secure as that of a strong economic base that not as directly connected to the ups and downs of the market place as are taxable entities. The University is, and always has been, the power of our economic engine even during the great depression according to my late A2 banker of 40 years. Another point of history.....the vote to change the City Charter to enable an income tax has been voted down the last few times by a four-to-one margin. The reason, I believe, is that the voters do not trust some future City government and believe that after an income tax is inacted, the property tax would reappear in some form. This has happened to several Michigan cities. At least this was the most expressed fear after the last vote on the subject. The city and the UofM have grown up together and each needs the other. I found that direct communications between the leadership of both entities was the best way to negotiate differences. There are many areas for city revenue discussions.....ie: water and sewer rates, fire protection, public transportation, police services, and several more. The best advice I can offer......comunnicate face-to-face and not via the media.
a2roots
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 12:31 a.m.
Where have you been Lou? How bout another go round as mayor? We certainly could use someone from the Republican party to step up.
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:42 a.m.
Great post. You might also add that an income tax versus a property tax has more potential to be quite regressive: 1) wage earners span the spectrum; 2) property owners (with the death of no equity mortgages) require that one have earned enough to capitalize the down payment; 3) almost by definition, the economic class of wage earners is going to be lower/lesser than that of wage earners. If you give up the property tax, there are two issues: 1) the regressive nature of the likely tax framework that MIGHT result; 2) property tax is "captive" you can't helicopter land away and the time frame for moving other physical assets is long, by contrast, an income tax can be reacted to by working elsewhere. At the margin, people won't move just to avoid an income tax, but they can and will do so if other factors also line up on that side of their personal ledger.
15crown00
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:17 a.m.
can you blame voters for not trusting city government? be it in Ann Arbor or anywhere else.
Stephen Landes
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:38 a.m.
Great post. I especially agree with your comment about not trusting city government -- adding an income tax does not mean the property tax would forever disappear. We have the same issue Federally with discussion about a VAT; it would become an additional tax above the income tax.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:13 p.m.
@Lou Belcher: Great post, sir! I agree a city income tax would be a bad idea. As your post illustrates, the future of even a vibrant city is never permanently assured. Bad leadership and bad mistakes are all that separate any city from ending up like Detroit or Battle Creek.
Jay Thomas
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:21 p.m.
Every property tax dollar that comes off the tax rolls has to be made up BY SOMEONE ELSE. Which in turn makes it more costly to live here, giving an impetus to buy outside of town (while retail businesses are vanishing due to the rents). It is all very circular. While in the past the majority of U of M employees did live in the city, they do not today. To pretend that buying food at the food court Ann Arbor has become, somehow makes up for that, as they return to their McMansions in the Sticks... is absurd. This is something that really should be decided in Lansing (where this tax exemption came from in the first place) and not up to the whim of some University administrator in a generous mood.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.
Do you want to fix Ann Arbor's financial problems? Easy solution, remove Hieftje and the rest of council. What is Ann Arbor without the UM? At best, Jackson. It should be easy for even a halfway competent council to manage the finances when there's one of the top 20 research universities in the entire world employing tens of thousands of residents. Sadly, our particular challenge is an incompetent mayor.
Bubba43
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.
Why can't Uof M pay at least $100.00 per building for help with the taxes?
beeswing
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:03 p.m.
Double the water/sewage bills and allow half of the yearly amount to be deducted from one's property tax--very simple.
a2grateful
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:45 p.m.
Face it, mayor. The grandest cash drain from the City of Ann Arbor is your giant folly.* Fix the folly. Find a cache of cash. (*Folly refers to: Diversion of dedicated millage funds to non-related endeavors. Use of parkland for anything other than parks, without voter approval. Amtrak stations not paid for by Amtrak. WALLY paid disproportionately by city residents. Countywide bus services paid disproportionately by city residents. Airport expansion. Conference centers subsidized by city residents. Destruction of established and clear pedestrian law. Choices not to enforce established housing code, traffic laws, and other ordinances. Lack of ethics policies for council, mayor, and DDA. Diversion of DDA tax collections from public schools, libraries, and city general fund. Recycling program that is founded on crony no-bid contracts, accepts less material than old program, and then sends much collected material to landfills. General prevailing mindset by elected leaders that basic municipal service provision is no longer required in Ann Arbor.)
arborani
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:30 p.m.
Well, I learned one thing from this thread: jcj has never worked for the U of M - ad infinitum.
arborani
Thu, Feb 14, 2013 : 10:56 p.m.
Should be "Same here." Been a long day.
arborani
Thu, Feb 14, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
jcj: Smae here - except it's been 50+ years. And not any more for me, either.
jcj
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:41 a.m.
But I have paid thousands of dollars for football tickets. 35 years. But not anymore!
mtlaurel
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:29 p.m.
The most serious price for this complex,global entreprise is the fact that many Michigan 18 y olds who would like to and have the talent can not afford to attend the Univ of Michigan. There is much loss of "localness" in many aspects. The University increases the percentage of out of state and foreign students and at the same time is depleting the city... yes-some sort of tax adjustments-that's valid.
blue85
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:25 p.m.
In November of 2012, the below was posted by Lou Belcher at: http://www.annarbor.com/news/workforce-at-university-of-michigans-north-campus-research-complex-hits-1700/ His comments were directed at respondents, bitter over the loss of tax revenue, to an article concerning the University's purchase and use of the Pfizer site. Those comments appear to have additional/ongoing relevance in the context of the current discussion and are worth reading/re-reading. Lou Belcher 9:47 AM on 11/16/2012 I took a great deal of heat for extenting a tax abatment for Parke Davis of $60M in 1979 for one reason and that was to attract JOBS from the corporate research center that they promised to create here.Fast forward through Parke Davis through Warner Lambert through Pfizer and now after Pfizer moved out we were left with an empty campus and 3,000 jobs gone. Over our history, A2 has lost every top private employer at their prime; Argus, Bendix, Sycor, pfizer etc. We have always replaced those jobs but have added more for one reason.... The University of Michigan. The "U" draws research funds from governments,corporations, and other entities. It's 40K+ student body and thousands of staff member spend millons in the area and this increases the value of private property and hence property taxes...ask the Pymouth road businesses if they want 3000 Pfizer employees that may be gone tomorrow or 3,000 "U" staff members who will be here forever...In my opinon it is not the property taxes lost....that's peanuts....it's the revenue generated from jobs and the related increase in private property values created by this revenue flow. The North Campus Research Center will created far, far more wealth for our fair city and area than Pfizer could in a hundred years. I only wish our federal government would learn....It's Jobs....not taxes that is important to all of our well being....please do not diss our "Golding Goose"....GO BLUE
DPlanner
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
The more U of M expands the more successful AA is! In addition to all of the jobs, the U provides amazing public spaces like the museums, libraries, and parks. The U pays huge subsides to the AA Ride bus system every year and makes the Blue busses free to everyone. It's also pretty cool to be able to live next to one of the best colleges and hospitals in the world. the U also supports the summer festival, street fair, and other events with large financial contributions. I could continue about many other bennifits.
DPlanner
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
jcj... Correct, the money comes from the University for the free blue bus. Free to the general public. deb, no the city does not pay for the majority of what I just listed. The city pays nothing for all of the FREE museums on campus. Much better that the University decides how it would like to contribute to the community than have the city waste more money.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.
"and makes the Blue buses free to everyone' Nothing is free! The money to pay for things does not fall from the sky!
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.
Yes, the museums are terrific, but parking is impossible and costs a fortune. As far as I know, only UM faculty, staff, students and retirees have real access to the U's libraries. Yes, the Arb is amazing, and I'm grateful we have such a wonderful hospital system, but that hospital system sure isn't free to Ann Arbor residents, nor should it be of course. There are lots of cool things about Ann Arbor and about the U. I particularly love all the theatre, and appreciate the music, dance, and lectures. But more and more it seems Ann Arbor is becoming a town for the affluent. I used to be able to take advantage of so many wonderful things about the U, but since retiring from the U, well, I simple can't afford those things anymore.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:16 p.m.
Sorry, DPlanner. Locals who are not connected with the University will not listen to reason.
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:21 p.m.
The city pays for the majority of everything you just mentioned . . .
Retiree Newcomer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:51 p.m.
It seems that city officials and university officials are largely talking past each other, not to or with each other. What objection would the university legitimately have to engaging in a structured public event to discuss these issues - some sort of professionally facilitated "charette" or something similar. This should address the long term relationship between the two entities and future trends in relationships between higher ed institutions and their host communities. Such an event should have participation at several levels including the highest echelon of both the city and university. The result should be specific ways for the two entities to address the future and institutionalize more open communication.
a2citizen
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:48 p.m.
Where would Ann Arbor be without the U-M? I guess we would be just another Dexter, or Brighton, or Chelsea, or Pinckney, or Marshall, or Rochester Hills...
David Paris
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 3 a.m.
You're being awfully kind... without The U, I'm thinking Benton Harbor or Flint would be a more likely comparison!
a2citizen
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:32 p.m.
ccsummer: I think each of those towns are nice...it's meant as a compliment to those locales.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.
Not sure of your tone here but I've always thought Dexter, Chelsea, and Marshall were beautiful little towns. Doesn't Rochester Hills have Oakland U? Don't quote me.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:51 p.m.
or Birmingham or Royal Oak or Bloomfield Hills or..... who knows? Its an unanswerable question.
Tom Abdelnour
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.
"The biggest issue is the university responds to a completely different set of laws than the rest of us, and because the university doesn't have to follow the city of Ann Arbor's resolutions, they only have to deal with Ann Arbor when they are using a right-of-way," Briere said. As usual, Ms Briere does not know what she is talking about !!! When the University uses any of the City's systems/utilities they have to follow the City's guidelines. This includes the City's water, sanitary, storm water, fire alarm systems, etc. The University follows all the same State codes as the City ( except for a few minor exceptions ). The bottom line here is " do we want the jobs the University brings to Ann Arbor or the property taxes ?"
Jay Thomas
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 3:54 p.m.
blue85: "The university has almost infinite flexibility..." Except that the people of Michigan OWN IT. Sorry nice try. Opening up other campuses is one thing but moving out of MI entirely is not going to happen.
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:35 a.m.
"The U is not going to leave" Sure, the U won't leave: 1) It's not like they would set up campuses in China, India and Los Angeles...oh, that's right, they have; 2) it's like they will start distance learning...oh, that's right they have; 3) it is not like they will convert physical print publishing to an electronic format..oh, that's right, they have. What is your point. The future will become increasingly fluid and the U will do what it takes to survive and prosper and any locality relying on a fixed location for a fixed tax shakedown is likely to kill the proverbial golden goose. The university has almost infinite flexibility because intellectual property creation can happen anywhere and be sited anywhere. Your flippant comment reflects an entire ignorance of the likely path of human evolution. Corporations have moved out of Michigan before and UM need not be the exception.
Jay Thomas
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:51 p.m.
Silliest argument ever. The university belongs to the people of Michigan and not the people who work there. It is not going anywhere; this is simply about determining WHO PAYS.
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.
The U is not going to leave
Elaine F. Owsley
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:27 p.m.
One of your comment posters asks for "full disclosure" regarding employment at the University. OK - my husband was employed by the University for 23 years, I worked there for 5 years, our daughter received both her bachelors and master's degrees at UM. What's your point? Does this disqualify us from having a valid opinion or observation regarding the issue? Ann Arbor would not be Ann Arbor without the University no mater where we, or any other person commenting worked.
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:31 a.m.
"BLUE I said in my original question about full disclosure, I do not and have never worked for the U of M. The fact that they do not and have not put food on my table probably has some bearing on my view. " So you are admitting that you have received no benefit? Should your disclaimer read: "I've never worked for the university, have never received a benefit from the university, so my bias may be toward criticism of the university until such time as they provide me with a benefit. In other words I'm here for a shakedown via a tax break, at which time my view might become more favorable."? <== to which you can add your tag line. "Just as those whose food has been paid for by the U have no doubt had a bearing on theirs! Most people do not bite the hand that feeds them. If a doctor is recommending a certain drug I suspect even you might want to know if he/she is paid by the drug company. Are you not suspicious of politicians that accept donations and then push agendas that benefit those that made the donations?" Your theory that people who receive benefits may be incented to opine positively is inarguably true. What you haven't acknowledged is the converse: that having received no benefit might lead to a negative view or criticism. So, to the extent that people are biased, you haven't refuted that you might have a negative bias and that bias might be complementary to a positive bias. Would you disposed to say nice things if a tax shakedown works? If you say no, I'm guessing other readers of the board will recognize the hypocrisy of the only living man who can receive a benefit and then continue to bite the hand that fed it. I also notice no answer to my other questions, in particular: if a population is skewed, and serving its self interest, why would you try to formulate a policy to ignore/eliminate that skew? Let's be concrete, if 80,000 of the people who live/work in Ann Arbor get a benefit and you don't, is it your place to strip their
jcj
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:33 a.m.
BLUE I said in my original question about full disclosure, I do not and have never worked for the U of M. The fact that they do not and have not put food on my table probably has some bearing on my view. Just as those whose food has been paid for by the U have no doubt had a bearing on theirs! Most people do not bite the hand that feeds them. If a doctor is recommending a certain drug I suspect even you might want to know if he/she is paid by the drug company. Are you not suspicious of politicians that accept donations and then push agendas that benefit those that made the donations?
blue85
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 8:33 p.m.
"My point is that whether or not you have worked for the University. You opinion will be skewed one way or the other." 1) Given that you want disclosure from others, how about your status? Have you ever worked for the university? Were you terminated for cause? Do you have some especial animus toward the institution due to a lawsuit or a negative experience experienced by a friend or relative? Do you think that opinions are formed in an emotional vacuum? 2) Given the preponderance of university affiliated individuals in Ann Arbor, and the probability that a commentator would have an affiliation with the university, and the preponderance of those affiliated with the university being likely to have had a positive experience with the university, what purpose does your one-dimension litmus test serve? Are you trying to eliminate those opinions from the sample/discussion-space? If you achieve that elimination, will the discussion reflect a true cross-section of Ann Arbor? 3) If a person was affiliated, and had a bad experience, might it not be possible that they might still, as a matter of rationality, favor expansion of university power? Invert the question: might not a good experience still lead to a desire for local curtailment of the U's power? 4) What are the moments of the distribution and when, if ever, should skew be removed? If skew is reflective of the population, does mere non-normality testing lead to a need for correction? If the population is skewed and the local opinion set is skewed, does a non-skewed sample reflect a sample that is properly usable for local prescriptive policy? 5) Did the suppotitious skew in the Presidential polls lead to an outcome that you anticipated and embraced? 6) Do you have experience in survey design and if so, how do you anticipate using it to improve the dialogue on this board?
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.
My point is that whether or not you have worked for the University. You opinion will be skewed one way or the other.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.
My husband was a UM prof. I worked at UM for more than 17 years. We had two kids graduate from the U and believe me, unlike at many other universities and colleges, there was no discount on tuition for either kids or spouses. I got a second grad degree while working at U of M and did get a tiny reimbursement, something like $200/term--you do the math. The amount of money I made was pathetic but the benefits were great and now that I'm retired I'm sure glad I have them. But I don't have much else.
P. J. Murphy
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:22 p.m.
If you look at the picture overall it's hard to resist the advantages of a city income tax. Property-based taxes are far from a perfect method of generating revenue for the city. This article is a good example of why that's true, but so too is the recent decline in city funds due to totally incidental changes in the value of local real estate. An income tax would also allow the city to derive funds from those outside the city who use and depend on city services on a daily basis. If the income tax was progressive, it would be even better since those who benefit the most would make a proportionally greater contribution. Changing tax structure is never easy and there's no question that it would be a considerable challenge for local politicians to get this done. Still I think it's an battle worth the effort. Taxes are never fun, but they can be rational and fair. This idea has been kicking around for a long time, maybe it's time to get serious and do it.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 4:03 a.m.
No thanks. I have no interest in calculating and paying even more taxes, just to make up for others that don't have to. No way will this fly.
Lou Perry
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
Time to call in the forensic accountants. The city needs to dissect the University of Michigan's no tax situation. It seems there are parts of the university that are for profit businesses that do not qualify as tax free. Book publishing is one that comes to mind. The university makes big money on football and promotional items/licenses.
blue85
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 1:39 a.m.
Brilliant! Bring in the IRS, have the IRS re-characterize the university's depiction of their income, have the IRS capture more tax revenue. This will benefit Michigan how? This will benefit Ann Arbor how? Be careful what you wish for. The good news is that the IRS isn't likely to take the incredibly stupid advice to create a national tax policy precedent based on the strength of the advice of a manual laborer who lacks a college education and/or basic reasoning skills.
walker101
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
U of M might as well be known as the 1%, its a great opportunity to buy property tax free and still benefit from free services, lose thousands of workers and hire a few hundred sounds like a great investment. Maybe we should call the city of Ann Arbor, University Michigan, has a better ring.
Townspeak
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:59 p.m.
Fire the tax assessor and replace with one who knows and/or enforces the law. We have non exempt and uncapped property to levy but the city is too scared to litigate these issues. I say the City attorney needs to create a new division in his office to go after these folks, or City should hire outside lawyers,on a contingency fee basis, to collect past due taxes and challenge these exemptions. The law/constitutional provision, granting the exemption, while broad and needing to be amended to fit the times, is not carte blanch protection from payment of any taxes, under any ownership situation. U of M is legally required to pay taxes on some of its property, but the City does not know when, nor does it have the stomach to fight for it.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:51 p.m.
Raise the U of M's water and sewage bills like they do ticket prices. Let them go build their own plants.And then we'll see that they need Ann Arbor as much as Ann Arbor needs them!
blue85
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 1:36 a.m.
Let's play that scenario out: 1) the university builds more facilities; 2) the cost of the facilities is recovered through additional charge outs to students; 3) tuition and room and board go up; 4) state of Michigan reimbursements are level to down; 5) the university then raises the number of out state students and International students to recover the money. Second scenario: looks like the first except that the university does not recapture that margin with higher numbers of students or higher tuition; in that scenario, with constant dollars in, if the amount spent on facilities goes up, then instruction rates go down, the university is not able to compete for talent and, ultimately, rankings slip. When rankings fade, the number of applications go down, as does the university's ability to charge a market value rate for tuition room and board. So, under the first scenario, Michigan students get crowded out; under the second scenario, you've killed the golden goose and, ultimately, the entire region will suffer and more closely approximate the rest of the state's one-state recession.
A2K
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.
"Arguably, if there wasn't a university here, the community might not be here that the university supports." It's not arguable...but Freshman Logic 101 aside: UM does bring in an ever-renewing pool of students, and supplies oodles of jobs. BUT! the compensation structure at UM is pathetic - and they are starting to losing talent in droves. For regular staff, the so-called hiring freeze isn't so much to save money, it's to curb lateral movement of people wanting to up their income after years of pathetic 1-2% "raises". Now that the economy is thawing, UM is losing employees to the private sector and it will only increase. Used to be UM had an excellent pay-structure and stellar benefits. Not anymore. They'll bank on their current "old big business model" for 3-5 more years, than switch tactics. *shrugs* It will save them millions in pay and benefits, but the loss of good-will and talent will be irreplaceable. Still, taxes in A2 are steep...and under Snyder's new rules we saw our taxes go up 2K, and it hurts.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.
Here's another "benefit" this university brings us residents: ON university property, everyone is obligated by law to FOLLOW U OF M REGULATION of such things as firearms ownership (and cigarettes, etc. etc.). We are, in effect, reduced to the status of U of M's 20 year old students. It's crazy: especially since some of these "student regulations" DIRECTLY VIOLATE Michigan's constitution. And being an employee of an organization which rules according to the whims and fancies of Mary Sue Coleman, et al, isn't exactly the job of choice for many. So those "benefits" have a dark underbelly in addition to the fact that control of 2.9 square miles of prime urban real estate drains the VERY RESOURCE this city depends on to provide police & fire protection (to mention just a couple of the prime benefits of living here which are at risk). I love U of M - and I love whales: but that doesn't mean I want to be swallowed by either one of them.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:47 a.m.
@Halter: how true. Meaning it's time for a change and restoration of the belief in freedom. Some people like to dictate to others and you're one of them. Taking advantage of ownership with which you're entrusted and using extortion as the price of employment is hardly what this country was meant to be about. Abuse it and lose it, "pal." :-)
Halter
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.
I have nothing to do with UM, and you have to follow the rules set out by me at my company if you want to do business with me or visit my facility. You can't have firearms or cigarettes in my offices -- and I'll fire you if you are a smoker. Get over it, pal, you can't do whatever you want everywhere.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.
Those walk in medical clinics that U has been expanding around town sure look like businesses. Their services are priced like a business too. Just like all of the University hospital services.
JRW
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:42 a.m.
Where are the new UM walk-in clinics around town? I called UM a month ago, and they told me they don't have any walk-in urgent care clinics. You have to go to the ER, even if its a minor issue, but not able to wait for a dr app't. The only walk-in clinic UM has at present is the UM Health Service for UM students and employees, not the general public. Please list the new walk-in clinics you are referring to.
Dog Guy
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3 p.m.
We all should hush up about U. of M. paying Ann Arbor anything because it owns enough to claim Naming Rights to the city. Old Missis with the Big House could whip us with a really nasty name change. You could have a return address in the city of COMMENT DELETED.
Wolf's Bane
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:50 p.m.
Anyone ever read the Scorpion and the Frog fable? Sound familiar? Good luck because without meaningful change both, the city and the University will perish.
arborani
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:25 p.m.
I heard it was a snake and a crow.
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
I did a series of blog posts in 2011 that argued for a city income tax. The last one (links to earlier ones are embedded) was http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/ann-arbor%E2%80%99s-budget-the-case-for-a-city-income-tax-iii/ As I noted in an update on that post, Michigan tax law has changed so that there is no adjustment on state taxes for a city income tax. Also, much retirement income was made liable to taxation by Gov. Snyder's tax package. (I'm sure a lot of people are just now figuring this out.) One advantage of the city income tax under the old scenario was that retirement income was exempt from state income tax and thus from city income tax. That would no longer be the case.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:04 p.m.
Yep, that new state tax is a real burden on seniors like me. A city income tax would be more than I could do.
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
vivienne- please read my post on the other article. I would like to hear your thoughts
r treat
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:46 p.m.
Set up toll booths on Football Saturdays.
Halter
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.
Whine Whine Whine....Ann Arbor would look like South Lyon if the university wasn't here... Instead of whining about the U taking up tax base, how about looking at council's own problems...denying permits to construction that WOULD add to the tax base, wasting money on greenbelts that do nothing for the taxbase but instead cost the city money, paying millions to consultants to solve problems for cities ten times the size of AA that are not needed here at all, etc.... Sure, its a problem that the U doesn't pay into the cities tax base -- but that is the law.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.
I am appalled each time the city spends huge amounts on consultants. I've always thought the city should make use of the U for such things. Let the U donate consultant time. Let's give grad students hands-on experience. I'd also like to see the city use U students in city planning, and designing buildings and parks. Well, parks. . . I voted against spending on greenbelts since we're unable to care for the parks within the city. And I firmly believe the city needs a park downtown, particularly since they're adding to the residential density downtown. I met a couple from Birmingham a couple years ago on the Amtrak to Chicago. We were talking and they mentioned Birmingham had just built a beautiful park right in the heart of their downtown. Ann Arbor is often compared to Birmingham as a beautiful little city--used to be compared to Birmingham.
Halter
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:59 p.m.
I do not either.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.
Full disclosure! Do you now or have you ever worked for the U of M? I have not.
Rugeirn Drienborough
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
The fact that the UM doesn't pay property taxes, and does contribute mightily to the local economy and culture, are two different issues. It's great for the community globally. However, we still have a city government to pay for, and those global benefits don't pay the city government's bills. Given that situation, the obvious answer is to abolish property taxes altogether and implement an income tax on everyone who works in the city instead. As the University payroll grows, city revenues increase along with it. Make it revenue neutral at first, then let it take its natural course. I'm a property owner here in the city. I'd be perfectly content with this if the city income tax I paid initially was in the same ballpark as the property tax I pay now.
jcj
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.
johnny read all my post and show me ONE that says anything about the U not paying taxes. My complaint is that they think THEY own the town and that they can do whatever they want. And those of you that think the ARE the Messiah! Answer this please. What would they do if they did not have the city water and sewer?
johnnya2
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 3:44 a.m.
@ JCJ, So your position is that people or businesses that do not pay taxes in Ann Arbor should not be allowed to use the roads? Interesting philosophy. I suppose I cannot go to Pittsfield Township anymore since I do not pay Pittsfield Township taxes. I guess we could set up toll lanes for residents and non-residents to determine who should be allowed to use roads. I am sure that will do the trick.
johnnya2
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 3:39 a.m.
@ JCL, Without the U, Ann Arbor would be a back water town PERIOD. That is the point . Nobody can claim this was some NEW thing. I know that is hard for you to understand BUT the very first day they came to town they did not pay taxes on the land they used to start up in Ann Arbor. I guess the mayor and city council should have been investigated. The U bought land in the 1800's, the 1900's and the 2000's and guess what, they city has annexed parts of township if it makes sense.
jcj
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:52 a.m.
Basic Bob Point taken. I still don't see what the U of M being older than Ann Arbor has to do with the price of cotton. And if the U is what makes the city why didn't they stay and make Detroit?
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:19 p.m.
The FD responds to dorm calls constantly.
Basic Bob
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:54 p.m.
@jcj, The University of Michigan started in Detroit, not the forest that became Ann Arbor.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.
johnny Close the streets to U of M buses and they'll find out what services they used to use!
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
johnnya2 Please explain your math! For the record the U is older than the city itself. It moved to Ann Arbor when the city was 13 years old.
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3 p.m.
Does the city plow the UM owned land? NOPE,. Do the UM use the city police force? Trash removal? What SERVICES of the city does the U use? Possibly the fire department, though when was that last used? Go ahead and charge the U on a per use basis. For the record the U is older than the city itself. It moved to Ann Arbor when the city was 13 years old.
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.
Maybe the city should let the U pay for its own bike sharing program
Richard Dawn
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:14 p.m.
Lets see, 9200 new jobs in exchange for 29 properties, mostly small lots around campus and reacquiring property it sold to Pfizer; I think every Mayor and Council in the country would line up to take that deal, offer tax abatement and enjoy the added personal spending and prosperity of the economic effect like the 43 percent growth in Ann Arbor's overall tax base cited in the article. Plus the article doesn't even mention the impact of the 8-10 new private company spin outs generated each year by UM.
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.
You realize pfizer tried to buy the property back form the U . . .
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:44 p.m.
Full disclosure! Do you now or have you ever worked for the U of M? I have not.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.
They could recover those lost taxes by imposing an income tax that only applied to University employees who earn six figure salaries. I'll bet that'd bring the university to the table.
SonnyDog09
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.
Unfortunately, "the rich" do not make enough money to fund our insatiable government. If you confiscated every dollar that "the rich" made over $100K, it would still not be enough to keep the beast fed.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
That's a plan I could get behind!
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.
Cheater Tax everyone just tax the six figure earners at a higher rate. That's been done.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:44 p.m.
Now that's the kind of tax most democrats usually support. I would!
Chester Drawers
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
I am certainly no expert, but I cannot believe that it would be legal to impose an income tax on a single employer's employees.
Bator
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.
I spent some time this owning puzzling over the front page photo of the print edition of AnnArbor.com. I was looking for landmarks along S. Division, when my husband pointed out that the photo was actually of the area of Washtenaw near the Life Sciences Buildings. It looks like the editors of your paper missed this. The paper must be staffed with folks who are not familiar with the city. This is the problem when a city's newspaper is owned by an out-of-town company. I had to go online to see the correct caption and I don't really have the time to read both the print and online editions.
observer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
whom do you blame, the UM for having good business smarts or the city for not....
Silly Sally
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
"... council member Steven Kunseluman, D- Ward 3, who wants the university to focus on "building up" instead of building out." Wow, a nice article, but it doesn't even spell the names of the city council members correctly. It is listed as "Steve Kunselman" or "Stephen Kunselman" on the Democratic party website. THere is no letter "U" in his surname. Oh, so silly!
deb
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:19 a.m.
No U!!!! Oh, so silly!!!!!
Silly Sally
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:44 p.m.
OK, Tony, you "got me", I should have said, "there is no letter "U" after the letter "L" in his name".
Tony
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
"THere is no letter "U" in his surname"? Really? Knselman??
Kellie Woodhouse
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:04 p.m.
Thanks for pointing this out- it's been fixed.
Elaine F. Owsley
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:06 p.m.
Good grief!! Here we go again. The primary question should be "What would Ann Arbor be without the University?" Why would there be business, retail stores, housing, or anything else without the 40-odd thousand students, the University paid employees, the visitors, or anything else - all that pay taxes of one kind or another? Quit complaining about the gift horse. Without it, Ann Arbor would be Ypsilanti North.
johnnya2
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 3:36 a.m.
@ JCL, So based on that argument, somebody who works for GM can not comment about the way they are managed? Somebody who works for the city of Ann Arbor should not be allowed to have an opinion because they have a tainted vision/ How about we decide any of the people who post on this be required to PROVE they are residents of Ann Arbor as well. i PAY property taxes and DO NOT work for the U. So your thought that people can not make decsions unless it is beneficial directly to their own pocket book shows more about YOU than it does about people commenting. Nobody is required to pass your litmus test on commenting
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:54 a.m.
Eh, what brought you to think it's a question of with or without? It's not. Yours is a false premise: the U will be here a long time because the cost of moving it would be an incalculable cost TO taxpayers. Making U of M spend a bit of it's endowment (it IS the largest endowment of ANY university) wouldn't affect it/them at all. The choice for U of M is to remain "public" and continue getting support from Michigan's Treasure (plus enjoying tax free status) OR going private - in which case they'd face even more pressure to pay taxes. Get it?
Boston20
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:59 p.m.
That is like saying that what would Ypsilanti be without GM. Oops. The difference is that UM can't go anywhere else. They are struck with us too. So why not work with the city instead of just saying that you should be thankful that we are here. Who knows, if UM wasn't here, A2 could be a city where people wanted to live & work.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
That's always the question, isn't it? There might not be an Ann Arbor as we know it, although I hardly know it anymore, if not for the U. But surely they could contribute more to the city.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.
"THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT A BUSINESS, it is a PUBLIC university." What about those walk in medical clinics they are expanding around town? Tell me again with a straight face that those are NOT A BUSINESS.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:01 p.m.
If you think where someones bread is buttered does not taint any argument they have is beyond silly! It is illogical!
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.
For the record, JCL, I DO NOT work for the U, though I did when I was in school for a short time I have done business with them in past employment, but the fact that you think that is an important question shows how silly you are.
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.
THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT A BUSINESS, it is a PUBLIC university. How much does the city pay in property tax on the police and fire stations? How about city hall? How about the parks? How much does the city pay in property taxes for land IT gobbled up from Pittsfield Township called the airport? Government entities do NOT pay property taxes due to this hing called the CONSTITUTION. If you do not like it, you are free to leave Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan was here before any of you were born. This is not new or should it be a surprise to anybody.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:42 p.m.
If the U of M is not dependent on the city then let them pack their bags and leave!
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
Elaine Full disclosure! Do you now or have you ever worked for the U of M? I have not.
Silly Sally
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.
But we do have many poorly managed public housing projects, that keep our property taxes high. Most University students and employees do not pay taxes, except for the occasional sales tax paid that is not at a Pittsfield Twp store. But Elaine is correct, without UM, Ann Arbor would be nothing.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.
So you think the business of the university should be completely unrestricted... That should be able to do anything they want. The university is a corporation that gets special advantages. They should endure all the appropriate scrutiny.
Chase Ingersoll
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
Ann Arbor - whining like Ypsi. IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE U of M: 1. How many $10 million per high rise properties would there be downtown? A: about as many as there are in Ypsilanti. 2. What would be the taxable value of commercial property on State, Liberty, South University. A: Michigan Avenue, Washtenaw aw and Cross Street in Ypsilanti - not even half of what it has been. 3. What would have been the taxable value, for the last 20 years of the property that the university purchased? A: Cross, Summit and Washington in Ypsilanti. Stephen: Yale / New Haven was a dumpy town due to it's growth during the two world Wars - like YPSILANTI, with most of the new inhabitants being African Americans from the deep South and Puerto Ricans. The result of this was the exit of middle class (whites) in the 1950's. My personal recollection - having spent a summer in New Haven in 1993 was of the dangerous PUBLIC HOUSING slums within walking distance of campus. Champaign, Illinois had a similar problem, as did Bradley University - Peoria, Illinois with an influx of working class during WWII, white flight and growth of public housing, that rather than being inhabited by veterans, was inhabited by fatherless children. Ann Arbor went high tech in and after WWII due to the cold war and never went industrial with the boom and bust cycle, never suffered the white flight and never made room for the poorly managed public housing compelxes.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:38 a.m.
False argument! No one is proposing that U of M "disappear." The ACTUAL proposal is that U of M be reigned in a bit and made to pay at least some compensatory annual fee to offset Ann Arbor's revenue loss. U of M won't disappear even if forced to pay such compensation - because the cost of moving such a behemoth is beyond calculating! Nice try though. :-)
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:42 p.m.
I just have to say that Ann Arbor has many poorly managed public housing complexes. I lived next door to one for 18 months and it was hell. I even called the Public Housing Commissioner who said, "You think that's bad, let me tell you what else is going on there and what I have to put up with." One irony was that there was an AAPD substation right next door to the complex. Every time I had to call the police, they told me I really needed to move. I finally did.
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:18 p.m.
The situation would be the same between the U and any other place city it choose to locate. To simply say, the U is the reason we are here, is to completely write-off the merits of this argument. Yes the U is what makes the city of Ann Arbor, but if the U were in South Lyon, it would make that city, and South Lyon would also have these same problems. Simply put, the u is a state entity and all STATE taxpayers should be providing for it, instead we have local taxpayers footing the bill
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
Full disclosure! Do you now or have you ever worked for the U of M? I have not.
thinker
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
How many of the 41,000+ employees of the U of M live in Ann Arbor and pay property taxes? We need a non-resident city income tax.
SonnyDog09
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.
What city services do non-residents that work in the city use? Please provide some examples. I pay non-resident income tax to the city of Detroit, and I cannot figure out what I am getting for my money.
Boston20
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.
I agree. ccsummer may be correct that some can't afford to live her. But I susepct most can. Nobody is saying you have to liver in A2 to work at UM. If you can't live in A2, you don't have to. If you expect services of A2, then somebody has to pay.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.
As I said earlier, many of the people who work at U of M don't live in Ann Arbor because they can't afford it.
Piledriver
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
U of M pay taxes??? Heck, they can't even pay their contractors performing the construction work on their projects in a timely manner! Try waiting 3 to 5 months to get paid, eventhough their contract stipulates 30-day payment terms. Contractors end up having to front their labor, material, equipment and subcontractor costs, while U of M sits on their money! Here the big U of M goes around worried about social issues all around the world such as workers' rights, affirmative action, etc., but when it comes time for them to pay their own bills, forget about it! U of M likes to bankrupt the contractors working for them - there's a news story for you annarbor.com!
DJBudSonic
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 3:54 a.m.
I bill UM in advance of delivery and it still takes 45 days average to get paid, even for jobs under $500. The NLT way to get paid faster is to accept Visa, which has its own costs and burdens on a small business. Also, I am completely opposed to a city income tax, forget that, I will pay more city taxes when UM kicks in to repair the roads their non-stop heavy construction equipment traffic ruin.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:34 p.m.
I too would like to see annarbor.com or maybe the Observer investigate this.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
I tend to believe Piledrivers version!
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:46 p.m.
Sounds like you work for a company that did something wrong with their billing. I have worked for companies that do business with the U, and we ALWAYS get paid in a timely manner.
batteriesincluded
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.
As a tax paying city resident, I certainly view a significant portion of my taxes each year as a donation to the university and take that into consideration when they seek alumni donations.
tim
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:09 p.m.
If you want tax dollars from the U then impose a city income tax. There are 41,700 full time employees at Michigan. My guess is that most of them don't work in Ann Arbor but drive thru town five days a week. With the additional revenue offset the high property taxes.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:32 p.m.
So many people who work at U of M don't live in town because they can't afford to. I just don't like the idea of a city income tax. Besides, it just might force me to have to move since I'm on the edge anyhow. Lots of seniors live here and while many are affluent, many aren't.
Jack Gladney
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
To single out U employees would be a lay-down home run case for any attorney who has heard of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection under the Law.
Tim Hornton
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:07 p.m.
Um makes ann arbor. Without it, AA is just another nasty dying rust belt town in the midwest.
a2citizen
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 5:07 a.m.
"...by the grants that you are so dismissive of ..." I'm not dismissive of anything. My comment may be "snark" but I consider Stephen Forrest's "engine" comment to Kellie to be an example of bloated, self-importance. University of Michigan Fiscal Year 2012: Federal Research grants.........................795.0 million State taxpayer appropriations.................307.6 million Federal Pell Grants...................................45.0 million Federal Build America subsidies................8.3 million The total is approximately $1.15B according to U-M publications. This does not include the $2.6B in patient care revenues because the U-M financial statement does not break down the money received from government Medicaid or Medicare programs versus private insurance programs. The numbers also do not include revenue for leasing (a substantial amount of) office space to the federal government for a federal employees. I have no idea where that bucket of money is kept. Maybe under "Other" of $8.3 million. "...Remember, the internet ..." Excluding the knowledge I gained while working on the U-M network, I probably forgot more about Internet technology than most people know. Now, that comment is "snark", but true. So yes, the U-M really isn't an economic marvel. It's a redistribution of wealth to people with lots of degrees. http://www.finance.umich.edu/reports/2012/
Tim Hornton
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:25 a.m.
Kellie (Higher Education Reporter), you forgot to give thanks to UM for providing 90% of your job too, I guess the other 10% is EMU. UM is Your "Engine in Ann Arbor".
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 1:17 a.m.
"Kellie, yes the U-M is the engine of Ann Arbor. But that engine is fueled by one billion dollars in federal research grants. " <== Wildly inaccurate: the figure is roughly $650 Federal with the rest from foundations and investment proceeds. If you feel that this is a trivial difference, send me a check. "Question: How does a U-M professor spell "taxpayer subsidies" ? Answer: "r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h g-r-a-n-t" Those grants lead to patents and medical devices. If you don't want UM to invent things like ECMO and cochlear implants or Lipitor, I'll send a release to you...you can waive any benefits and I'll send you a check for your share of the cost of those grants. Remember, the internet and NSF net, projects to which UM made integral contributions, were funded by the grants that you are so dismissive of. It is no exaggeration to say that without UM contributed technology, you wouldn't be able to post your snark on this forum. "The U-M is a lot of things, but it is not an economic marvel." UM brings in 2/3 of its alumni donations from out of state or roughly $150MM/year; brings in excess out of state tuition on the order of $160MM year; brings in $300MM/year in investment proceeds. All of that is new money to Michigan in return for the $300MM/year in state funding...that is a huge marginal return before Federal money. The Federal money is $650MM/year and largely originates from outside of Michigan. The average UM faculty member is the envy of the civilized world for the ratio of funding he/she attracts. So, in every material respect, UM is an economic marvel.
a2citizen
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:41 a.m.
Kellie, yes the U-M is the engine of Ann Arbor. But that engine is fueled by one billion dollars in federal research grants. Question: How does a U-M professor spell "taxpayer subsidies" ? Answer: "r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h g-r-a-n-t" The U-M is a lot of things, but it is not an economic marvel.
Tim Hornton
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:58 p.m.
Yes I worked for UM for over 4 years. Great place.
deb
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.
Explain to me how the U can move? Are they going to airlift michigan stadium?
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:43 p.m.
Kellie With all due respect. Stephen Forrest, VP of research at the U might have a dog in this fight! Would you blindly believe everything any lobbyist in Lansing or Washington?
Kellie Woodhouse
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
Interesting take. Stephen Forrest, VP of research at the U, once told me: "What Ann Arbor would look like without the University of Michigan is another industrial town that was in decline. It is the engine of Ann Arbor."
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
Tim Full disclosure! Do you now or have you ever worked for the U of M? I have not.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
I recognize the importance of UofM to the city, no question. But the notion that every non-university town in the midwest is dying and rusty is a bit hyperbolic.
Ryan Bowles
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.
Sounds like we ought to shift some of the property tax burden to an income tax, like some cities in Michigan do.
Justin Altman
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:28 a.m.
How about not volunteering other people's money?
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.
@ Nicholas, Other than the whole constitution thing
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
The income tax should be university specific.
Michigan Reader
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:59 p.m.
That's been tried a least three times, and it's been defeated each time at the polls.
motorcycleminer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.
For 176 years the " U " , love it or hate it, has made Ann Arbor what it is ... That we have an inept city government that can't find its tail with both hands in no way is due to the fact that the " U " absorbs ( in most cases ) property that otherwise is unsalable ( the towers , phizer, and others ) as to houses and " Blimpys " if the city wants to keep that from happening buy them instead of cow pastures 20 miles from here which by the way is what this would be without big blue....
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
Full disclosure! Do you now or have you ever worked for the U of M? I have not.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.
As much as I despise the elitist attitude of the school here. I agree buying cow pastures is the last thing the city should be doing!
a2citizen
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
Just throwing this out there: How about a city income tax that also offsets property tax? The net gain/loss to residents would be zero. And have the vote in July when the transient/student population is minimal. I'll let an expert out there give me the legal yea or nay.
a2citizen
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:03 p.m.
Craig, I feel your pain in regard to yearly tax increases. U-M and government employees get raises every year. Therefore, there would be an increase in tax revenue equivalent to the raise percentage. I haven't found a source yet to determine the number of property owning residents that work at the following entities but here are some numbers. Entity......................Employees U-M Education...........16,000 U-M Hospital..............12,000 AAPS...........................3,500 Federal Government....2,500 WCCC...........................1,559 City of Ann Arbor.............710 Additionally, credits could be given to people earning, say less than $30k, to minimize transient student interest in the subject.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.
I have read such a hypothetical income tax could actually be a net positive for residents who own property. The theory being, if it were revenue neutral then the added income tax from those who commute would be the plus on the ledger for those who pay property taxes. It makes sense to me in theory but I don't trust the revenue neutral part. My property taxes have only gone up every year in my modest 1200 square foot ranch since I bough it in 1994. Note that is NOT a complaint just a fact.
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:50 p.m.
Even a rattlesnake has a heart. But I have seen no evidence the U of M has a soul. We need to turn the tables on them. Lets figure out a way to charge them at every turn like they do their ticket holders. I am giving up my football tickets after 35 years. Everyone says how much the city needs the U of M.But let them try going somewhere else and they will find out how much THEY need the city!
lebron
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 5:15 a.m.
Can I have your tickets please?
Boston20
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 7:24 p.m.
Due to the size of UM, I think it is pretty obvious that A2 needs UM to survive. The question that is brought up is how UM is affecting A2's ability to offer the services that everyone wants. The comments that when UM builds more buildings, the people employeed are from A2. If you head east on M14 or north on US23 in the morning, it is obvious that many of their employees do not live her nor pay taxes. Whatever happened to City Councel's idea of an income tax? That would bring in extra revenue each time UM expands. I doubt the mayor wants this since he would be impacted.
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.
RIDICULOUS. Tell me why anybody would open ANY business in Ann Arbor without the U? Without the U, Ann Arbor is worse than Jackson, at least they have a prison for employment.
OLDTIMER3
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:47 p.m.
Why should parking structures be exempt from propert taxes just because they are owned by the UofM. In my opinion if they are charging for parking they should be considered as commercial properties .
blue85
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 1:29 a.m.
"Every building on the U's property could be commercial then. Some academic departments (I don't know about all) actually rent their space out from the U. Talk about $$$ making! Departments in the Medical School pay for their research space through grant money. The University actually charges its own departments rent. Why not tax them too?" The entire university is tax exempt, the fact that it chooses to use a management concept such as allocated costing/funding -- used by both for profit and not for profit the world over -- does not detract from that tax exempt status. There is an IRS test as to the taxation of income that is not used in the furtherance of the not for profit objectives. If the university builds a building and then recovers that cost by "renting" space to two departments and if those departments then use that "revenue" (i.e., an accrual offset to the already incurred expense of building the building) in their budget model in order to charge tuition, that doesn't fundamentally change the mission being served. The mission is still not for profit, the cost recovery is an allocation to cover a bona fide expense (housing of the enterprise) of a not for profit. As for the Medical space, that space is "rented" to researchers in order to match off against the cost recovery component of grants. Grant givers recognize that the university property degrades with time and with research volume and part of the grant is recovery for that depreciation. The research is still not for profit, but the allocation or charge out of rent recognizes that the facilities experience wear and tear.
teeters
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
Every building on the U's property could be commercial then. Some academic departments (I don't know about all) actually rent their space out from the U. Talk about $$$ making! Departments in the Medical School pay for their research space through grant money. The University actually charges its own departments rent. Why not tax them too?
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:36 p.m.
an interesting thought.
Albert Howard
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.
The mayor likes 'press talk' and he has already made his decision.
ccsummer
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
I think it's important to point out that the mayor teaches at U of M.
life in the city
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
U of M is the heart and soul of Ann Arbor, and it is trying to grow in an intelligent manner to create a cohesive central and medical campus. Rather than complaining about U of M taking property off the tax rolls, we should be encouraging the city council to support development of the MichCon property by the river, and the old Kroger site that is sitting vacant to get those properties on the tax rolls.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.
Ann Arbor is blessed to have hundreds of non-profits. The U-M is just the largest and best. The mayor and city council members quoted in this article who raised this concern are correct this is a major long term challenge for both the city and U-M. If the city cannot afford city services up to national standards such as fire, police and emergency rescue, who would send their kids to school here? U-M has a vested interest in Ann Arbor thriving. I can recall when I attended Yale for college people would tell me, Yale is a such great school, but it's a shame you have to live in a dangerous and dumpy town like New Haven. I chose Yale despite New Haven and it was a tough choice back then. When New Haven was a dump it dragged Yale down. By working with the city (including payment of a voluntary annual PILOT and a homesteading subsidy for Yale faculty & employees) Yale turned New Haven around. One easy option that city council could implement unilaterally is to place a permanent deed restriction in the title of any property the city owns and then sells (such as the downtown lots now proposed for development), that requires a lump sum payment by any non-profit that acquires that property. The lump sum payment would be equal to the value of the future taxes that would be lost. @Borisgoodenough also mentions this above. The city could also create model language and encourage all property owners in the city to formally add that language to the deeds of their own properties.
blue85
Wed, Feb 13, 2013 : 1:03 a.m.
02_12_5? You said (7) "In the 18 years I've been making loan decisions here, I not yet seen a certified appraisal say that the highest and best use of the property is for it to be sold to U-M, or even mention the U-M, other than as a major economic and jobs producing factor, as our largest local employer and industry. " My response (7): The "other than as" factors that you cite actually encapsulate the negation of your argument: 1) the highest and best use is to the highest bidder (econometrically speaking); 2) UM is that highest bidder and thus the highest (dollar) use; 3) the jobs and employment factors, for a non-retirement community, may not be lightly dismissed; as other commentators have noted, what would Ann Arbor real estate be without the 80,000 full and part time community the university represents?; 4) note that Ann Arbor has a population of 114,000, so between full and part time residence, the University is actually much larger than the rest of the town.; 5) can you argue with a straight face that the wealthiest entity in the county with the deepest line of credit does not affect/impact the local pricing structure. You said (8): "The impact of raising property values by cutting property taxes 5% across the board would more than offset all 7 items you are concerned about." My response: This is pure assertion unsupported by any metric that you've presented. Let's suggest a scenario: 1) Were the market efficient, if you cut $5MM in property taxes (the kind of number bandied about for a penalty tax on the University) by taxing Michigan, then property values should exactly offset with a rise of 5% or a comparable $5MM; 2) in fact, the policy change you suggest would be a simple wealth transfer to Ann Arbor residents in year one, but on an annuitized basis, as a perpetuity, would be $5MM/.05 equal to a loss of $100MM to UM. Good luck selling that theory to UM…I'll take the short side of that trade every day.
blue85
Wed, Feb 13, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.
02_12_4 You said (6): Lastly, with all your complicated arguments, you miss the point that an entity that buys on average two properties in the city a year, when dozens transact each month, can't possibly impact the overall level of property prices in Ann Arbor. My response (6) This is also categorically false: 1) all economic transactions take place at the margin; 2) the university represents the deepest pockets in the region and is likely (c.f., Blimpy purchase) to be the highest marginal bid; 3) as a 10% owner of property, many key parcels are subject to potential university purchase…the gravitational field exerted by the university is not limited to property that it owns but by property it might want to buy; 4) as the liquidity bank for the Pfizer sale, what influence did UM have on the sale price? The property had zero bid for two years and was effectively worth zero…perhaps it even had a negative value to a user who would have to demolish the old plant or clean up EPA issues. With the advent of the university bid, the price "jumped" from a theoretical zero to $108MM or whatever.If you know anything about property, the cliché holds here: location, location, location. Any property near the university's footprint, and that footprint is large enough to encompass ALL of Ann Arbor, is worth a different amount than it would be in, for example, the UP.
blue85
Wed, Feb 13, 2013 : 1:01 a.m.
02_12_3 You Said (4): "You are correct that the calculations are important and the details are important to get right, however, the city's large pension fund has the same time value of money, future value of money, investment and earning rate problems" My response (4): That is categorically false for a number of reasons: 1) the pension fund uses the time value of money, but is defeasing different liabilities than would a university property program; 2) those differential liabilities are subject to mortality tables, not tax regime and property value variables; 3) the prior point means that the underlying stochastic processes are completely different, not just a nicety. You simply cannot create an equational equivalence between the two. You said (5): , "hence my suggestion that the funds raised by the exit tax would be best contributed to the pension and retirement healthcare funds, since they are best placed to deal with and calculate these uncertainties and the overall risk to the city would be less than using any other method." My response (5): For the reasons noted above in #4, this is categorically false and a potentially very dangerous assumption. Pension and healthcare factors, as noted, are driven by actuarial tables and require a blend of cash, fixed income and equities to defease them; property prices are driven by, inter alia: 1) supply/demand; 2) mortality/health (commonality with pension); 3) forward tax regime; 4) forward supply/demand for loanable funds; 5) in the universities case, macro factors such as those related to GDP which drive federal funding of the university. So, as prior asserted, trying to match those processes would be likely to lead to huge mismatches.
blue85
Wed, Feb 13, 2013 : 1 a.m.
02_12_2 You said (3): "In another post, you asserted that the "exit tax" cap rate in today's market could be as low as 2%. If you believe cap rates on real estate in Ann Arbor could be as low as 2%, please bring your check book to my office and I'll sell you the deed to every property our bank owns in Ann Arbor!" My response (3): You have completely misquoted me. I did NOT state that cap rates could be as low as 2% in Ann Arbor, I hypothesized the impact of such a rate on the viability of university purchases. In fact, I would love to get your guess on UM's implied cap rate. Here are the facts: 1) UM is not for profit; 2) as a NFP, it does not issue equity, but does issue debt; 3) UM has roughly $1.8Bn in outstanding debt; 4) nearly $1bn of that debt is issued, by my calculation, at a blended rate of roughly 65bps; given that fact, what is your cap rate calculation?5) I stated that the implied cap would NOT incent Michigan to buy because it would not be economic for the university to do so; 6) you apparently don't understand that if I say Michigan would NOT be a buyer, then by definition, you can't be a seller…it probably felt very "bankerly" to say that you'd like to be short, but you have completely inverted my argument and my argument as to the economics; my point is that currently UM is a buyer with an edge; you agree that there is an edge, and want to take it away, and I've opined to the contrary; given all of those constructs, how do you conclude that I would suggest that Michigan be long and you would be able to become short? That makes zero sense under the discussion thus far and completely inverts my assertion.
blue85
Wed, Feb 13, 2013 : 12:59 a.m.
02_12_1 You Said (1): "@Blue85: While it is true that the federal *income tax* tax-exempt status of U-M is granted by the federal government, the exemption from paying property taxes for non-profits is a state derived legal benefit." My Response 1): The IRS would disagree: as IRS publications note: "Federal Tax Obligations of Non-Profit Corporations Non-profit status may make an organization eligible for certain benefits, such as state sales, property, and income tax exemptions." In other words, the Federal code section constitutes a gateway that not for profits must pass through before receiving the state exemption. To that extent, as a guy who is not a constitutional lawyer, I'd be very interested to see the state try to either preempt the Federal code or to legislate a change. I'd bet you'd see a flood of amicus briefs from every church and foundation in the 50 states. You Said (2): "Exit tax" is just nomenclature short-hand for the same idea that I was advocating. Sometimes better semantics help *sell* a complex idea and I think "exit tax" describes this complex idea well. My response (2): As already noted the difference between "front set/front pay" and "front set /back pay" is enormous: the probability spaces are different; the convexity calculation becomes more complex. In conclusion, this is not a case of mere semantics. Your differential time domains, as postulated, not only completely change the complexion of your argument, they completely change the complexity of the calculation, and thus the probability of an accurate/fair implementation.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
@Blue85: While it is true that the federal *income tax* tax-exempt status of U-M is granted by the federal government, the exemption from paying property taxes for non-profits is a state derived legal benefit. "Exit tax" is just nomenclature short-hand for the same idea that I was advocating. Sometimes better semantics help *sell* a complex idea and I think "exit tax" describes this complex idea well. In another post, you asserted that the "exit tax" cap rate in today's market could be as low as 2%. If you believe cap rates on real estate in Ann Arbor could be as low as 2%, please bring your check book to my office and I'll sell you the deed to every property our bank owns in Ann Arbor! You are correct that the calculations are important and the details are important to get right, however, the city's large pension fund has the same time value of money, future value of money, investment and earning rate problems, hence my suggestion that the funds raised by the exit tax would be best contributed to the pension and retirement healthcare funds, since they are best placed to deal with and calculate these uncertainties and the overall risk to the city would be less than using any other method. Lastly, with all your complicated arguments, you miss the point that an entity that buys on average two properties in the city a year, when dozens transact each month, can't possibly impact the overall level of property prices in Ann Arbor. In the 18 years I've been making loan decisions here, I not yet seen a certified appraisal say that the highest and best use of the property is for it to be sold to U-M, or even mention the U-M, other than as a major economic and jobs producing factor, as our largest local employer and industry. The impact of raising property values by cutting property taxes 5% across the board would more than offset all 7 items you are concerned about. Thanks for the informed debate on an interesting topic!
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 8:06 p.m.
Part III 7) as I noted in my first note, the math used to calculate with spot or forward values requires induction (forward and backward respectively: spot from forward or forward from spot) on several data sets: forward discount rates, forward tax regimes, the forward value of reinvestment amounts realized in forward time (what Ann Arbor would realize with a front loaded payment from UM, this money would have to be invested to ensure defeasance of forward taxes not collected); these are non-trivial calculations; getting the calculations wrong means you have tied your tax policy and property values to the correct calculation of forward settling derivatives; if you get the calculations wrong, the implication for property values, taxes and future prosperity may be very seriously distorted. As a final note, I believe that the tax exempt status of the university is a Federally derived exemption. If so, then relative to currently owned property, this is not something that you/Ann-Arbor can wish away, you would probably have to amend the Federal tax code and deal with whether or not to grandfather the current property inventory. It is hard to believe that the Federal government would allow such a complex change.
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 8:04 p.m.
Part II: "@Blue85: U-M has bought 29 properties in the 14 years since 1999. Dozens of properties change hand in Ann Arbor every month. The notion that restraining U-M from buying properties unless they pay a fair "exit tax" on the property taxes those properties would have otherwise brought the city would somehow decrease property prices of real estate in Ann Arbor is non-sense!" 4)as a logical matter, if you strip away that tax advantage, the properties which were formerly inflated to the extent of the tax advantage, having lost that high bid and higher value, will lose value, this is pure logic, but can be proved using standard/common valuation techniques in any basic finance text; 5) as a logical matter, if you want to tax away the not for profit edge, how can you expect anything other than the very diminution of value that you hope to create? That is if you want to reduce the value to UM, by transitivity, you reduce the value to Ann Arbor. That is, if you reduce the value of some of the members (a subset) of a set, by pure set theoretic logic, you reduce the value of the entire set; 6) if you reduce the extremal value of a set (the high bid) you reduce the variance of the set, hence the volatility of the set; optional value is proportional to volatility; by reducing one you reduce the other; a diminution in call volatility reduces liquidity because the former bid for that call option goes away and takes its capital with it; less capital equates to lower bids which equates to lower prices;
blue85
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 8:03 p.m.
"@Blue85: U-M has bought 29 properties in the 14 years since 1999. Dozens of properties change hand in Ann Arbor every month. The notion that restraining U-M from buying properties unless they pay a fair "exit tax" on the property taxes those properties would have otherwise brought the city would somehow decrease property prices of real estate in Ann Arbor is non-sense!" As I understand it, converting your arguments into affirmative statements (which I believe I've done accurately, and without loss of generality): 1) UM should be restrained from buying a property unless they pay an exit tax; 2) that exit tax should equate to taxes that would otherwise be paid by a for profit entity; 3) my argument that such a tax would reduce property prices is nonsense. Before commencing, I'll note that this publication has erased comments by me that are hardly more snarky than characterizing another poster as one who projects/publishes "non-sense". Let me note the following: 1) your initial argument was for a lump sum payable at purchase ("future taxes") and nowhere uses the phrase "exit tax'; your second argument uses the phrase "exit tax"; thus your first and second arguments are completely inconsistent as to time domain; 2) in mathematical finance, future and spot values are computed very differently, so, in addition to – in fact as a direct consequent of -- changing your argument, you've changed the math which must be used to solve the problem; 3) purely as a logical matter, if 10% of the property in AA is tax advantage and allows UM to "overbid", then 10% of the property in AA is overvalued to the extent of the present value (PV) of the taxes avoided, this is also basic finance 101;
A2comments
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:55 p.m.
Asking a property owner to put a deed restriction on their property is asking them to reduce their properties appeal to a prospective buyer. That's never going to happen.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 3:31 a.m.
@Blue85: U-M has bought 29 properties in the 14 years since 1999. Dozens of properties change hand in Ann Arbor every month. The notion that restraining U-M from buying properties unless they pay a fair "exit tax" on the property taxes those properties would have otherwise brought the city would somehow decrease property prices of real estate in Ann Arbor is non-sense! In fact, if U-M paid PILOT or property tax "exit taxes", this would allow Ann Arbor to lower property taxes, or at least slow their inexorable rise, which would have a dramatic and positive impact on property prices in Ann Arbor. If you reduced property taxes in Ann Arbor 5% across the board (that would require only $3.5 million a year), what do you think would happen to property prices in Ann Arbor?
RUKiddingMe
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 12:22 a.m.
That's good to know about New Have, I'll have to go take a look. Now I've lost my super-great example of how people can't rely on a big university making their town impervious to slums developing due to mismanagement. I'll have to rely on your and other NH visitors/residents memory to back me up on that.
ordmad
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:57 p.m.
Same comment on related stories. Both equally vapid for all the reasons blue85 points out. Point us of course to say Yale. No one cares.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
@RUKiddingMe: I was one of the 300 alumni elected to the annual Yale Assembly for three years ending only a few years ago and was also back in 2011 for a 25th reunion, and was amazed each time I went recently how vibrant the town was. Places in town I would literally have been caught dead in, were high end restaurant districts. When I attended Yale, New Haven was the 7th poorest major city in the U.S. When I was there as a scholarship student in the early 1980s, since I couldn't afford cab fare to get to the train station, to go home at the end of school sessions, I wore my sneakers and put my clothes in a small backpack. As soon as I crossed the bridge across the freeway I started running at top speed and didn't stop until I was safely inside the train station. Amazingly enough, it worked and I never got mugged. Now that area is a high end medical school district.
RUKiddingMe
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 9:34 p.m.
Stephen, in what year did New Haven get turned around? I was there in 1996, 2002, and 2006, and in none of those years was it turned around. It was just as bad each time I went.
blue85
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 8:18 p.m.
"a permanent deed restriction in the title of any property the city owns and then sells (such as the downtown lots now proposed for development), that requires a lump sum payment by any non-profit that acquires that property." As above: 1) I believe the calculations non-trivial, harder to model than you might think, and very prone to changes in forward curves in rates, taxes, and volatility, making any such computation equally dangerous to university and town; 2) if you partition the buyer space into profit and not for profit, you reduce the market for local property from one with a global audience of both for profit and not for profit, into one which is likely to be local and for profit. Why point #2?: 1) partitioning the bid/offer space will reduce liquidity; 2) a liquidity reduction means that you will probably have to find buyers that don't want to or are not able to calculate the risks posed in point #1; you also have to sell with buyers who can project local changes and calculate their risk/returns according...tougher for a national or global investor than a local investor; 3) a reduction of liquidity means an increase in calculated return/cost variance for the remaining buyers...which will help to equilibrate the no-arbitrage space for pricing by driving up cap rates and driving the consequent valuations down; 4) if you charge a lump sum, you have to invest that lump sum over the initial calculation period in order to eliminate reinvestment risk and to ensure that the monies are risk and tenor matched; this is also a non-trivial problem; The biggest problem? You have a local entity which is the strongest bid for all local property being taken out of the game via the imposition of a penalty tax. If you eliminate the largest, most expert, local pool of liquidity as the possible bid for local assets which might become impaired (e.g., Pfizer), you will reduce, by transitivity and substitution principals, ALL local values.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:43 p.m.
@Michigan Reader: Many types of non-profits can apply to exempt their property from income tax, for example churches, synagogues and mosques. With that exemption, religious organizations do not have to pay any property tax in Michigan.
walker101
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4 p.m.
And how long would it be for UM to sell off any properties it has acquired? When was the last time UM sold off any properties to a public entity. A2 has a few areas locally already starting to look like the old New Haven along with crime and lack of fire and police protection.
Kellie Woodhouse
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.
Stephen, I think your first graph is a great analysis. The council members I talked to for this story praised the university for bringing great things to the town, but felt like the loss of tax revenue wasn't sustainable.
Michigan Reader
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 1:52 p.m.
Non-profits DO pay property taxes in the city, they are exempt from income taxes. The reason the University doesn't pay ANY taxes is because it's a government entity.
A2comments
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:10 p.m.
Should be feel, not feed... U of M should pay each city in which it owns property a stipend, like Brown and the other schools do. Or the city should withhold services.
A2comments
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
blue85 - Nice job on presented a stacked deck... :) My point was that it is unreasonable that the U doesn't contribute anything to the city to support services that it received. What they contribute to the state is not relevant unless the state then gives that money to the city, no? I understand the benefit of having the university here. We moved back to the area in large part because it's here. And, if the university didn't expand, i.e. maintained the same level of non-tax revenue generating property for decades, I'd have less focus on this. But, when the university removes a piece of property from the tax rolls, versus building on property they already own, then something needs to be given to the city to compensate for that loss of revenue. And, if the university is using city services, such as fire protection, then the cost of those services should be borne by the university. I realize that one of the fire stations is on university owned land, and they've contributed at times something to the firefighting cause. But if the city can quantify these costs on an annual basis, there should be some reimbursement for them. In short, all things being equal, it's unfair to raise the taxes of Ann Arbor residents each time the University removes a piece of property from the tax rolls, and that's what is being done.
blue85
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.
If you read the university's financial reports, you will see a line that jumps off the page related to the university's "charitable" contributions to the state of Michigan: in excess of $300,000,000/year. This figure probably relates largely to uncollected medical receivables. I don't think the university "markets" that figure, but I would guess that one response to punitive city actions could/might be to absorb the impact by reducing that figure or other figures in its budget. In an era where state support has dropped $175,000,000/year after inflation, competition for students is going up, funding for schools nationally is going down, aid to students has reached a tipping point, and the federal budget for research may be reduced, killing a cash cow like the University may be a bit short-sighted. Remember, while the university is not paying property taxes, as the article notes, it reduces employment volatility, adds thousands of local jobs, and has a construction budget that lets the county experience a rather insulated economic boom during a time of the one-state recession that Michigan has experienced. On the other side of the coin from taxes not paid, as an owner of 10% or so of the town, the UM construction budget creates an extremely high-grade environment that the city and the city's residents don't have to maintain. Town residents generally enjoy an easement onto/into/across university property, so this environment (the Arb, the concert halls, the theatres) is free to residents, but is a cost that is unrecouped by the university.
Borisgoodenough
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:03 p.m.
One consideration I've never seen treated as part of this discussion: because of its tax exempt status, the University has a significantly different financial calculus than a potential private buyer for purchasing a property. Its ongoing cost of ownership looks different than it would to another owner, because it won't have to pay property taxes. This means that it's not a level playing field when a property goes on the market -- those lower future ownership costs mean the University can pay more today than other potential buyers. I wonder if there's a back door approach to solve this. Instead of asking the University for in lieu of taxes payments, could the city impose a one-time fee on the sale of any property to an entity entitled to remove that property from the property tax rolls, imposed on the seller and based on the sales price? This could accomplish two things: both help the city coffers when property leaves the tax rolls and help to level the playing field when U-M competes with another buyer to purchase a property that's on the market.
Justin Altman
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:26 a.m.
Here's a radical idea: Stop charging property tax. The services provided by the city can be funded through voluntary means. If it makes sense to have police to prevent crime, insurance companies should jump at the chance to fund them. If buses can help people get to jobs and shopping areas downtown, the property owners downtown have the rational interest to provide lines for workers and customers to get there. Or the City can continue to play this game of chicken with the state and federally funded University. I'm not betting on the player that doesn't have a printing press pushing cheap student loan money into the game.
blue85
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 8:01 p.m.
"those lower future ownership costs mean the University can pay more today than other potential buyers." Modeling property value requires two items: the forward cash-flows and the forward discount curve. While the university would experience lower marginal tax costs modeling the forward curve is non-trivial, as would be modeling the forward tax regime. "could the city impose a one-time fee on the sale of any property to an entity entitled to remove that property from the property tax rolls" As noted in the first comment, this is a non-trivial exercise that would make it very difficult to arrive at a fair fee. Assuming that the volatility of the flows were fixed, and given the low cost of even long-term funding, along with low volatility of funding rates, a cap rate close to zero would be used. At such low implied cap levels, it is likely that the benefit would be very large. For example, at a cap rate of 200bps, the value of each $1 flow would be $50. I.e., a 50:1 ratio. Such a large ratio would be uneconomic for the university.
OLDTIMER3
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 12:52 p.m.
The city would probably waste such a payment on more artwork.
dancinginmysoul
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
Ann Arbor residents have been concerned about the tax situation with The U for decades. There's a reason it's so expensive to live in Ann Arbor, and why rents for businesses in the downtown area are so high. Taxes get jacked up for the rest of us so the city can attempt to recoup the loss. Just out if curiosity, who are the top property owners in the city in terms of square miles? How much does McKinley own?
a2roots
Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 12:14 a.m.
@johnnya2...It is quite unlikely that many investment properties are owned free and clear. In fact wise business people will leverage their equity to expand on their portfolios or fund other activities.
jcj
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.
Johnny "Rents are NEVER determined by cost." Talk about delusional!
johnnya2
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 3:29 a.m.
@ Major and JCL, WRONG. In fact rents rise and fall all the time. Rents are NEVER determined by cost.. If the taxes were 0 do you believe rents would come down? There are buildings that have no mortgage and some that do. If there is an interest payment involved that would bee a cost. Do you see any landlord dropping their rents when their loans get paid off/ IT DOESNT HAPPEN If you do, you are delusional. On the flip side, if taxes were $1 million dollars do you think they could rent out the property at whatever that number is? A renter has NO CONCERN what a property owner pays in taxes.
dancinginmysoul
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 10:23 p.m.
Thanks Lizzy! Interesting, not surprising.
Lizzy Alfs
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 9:29 p.m.
Some of the largest: First Martin, U-M, Dominos Farms, Mckinley
jcj
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.
johnnya2 Major has it right and THAT'S basic economics.
Major
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:22 p.m.
johnnya2, when one buys a property to rent, all cost to operate need to be in the price of rent. In Ann Arbor the tax portion is a very large piece of that pie. Supply and demand take it the rest of the way. I guarantee you if (and when) taxes go up...so does the rent...THAT is basic economics!
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
Rents are so high because of SUPPLY AND DEMAND. The rates for rent would not change if taxes were completely dropped for all businesses, nor would they go up if tax rates did. This is basic economics.
Arboriginal
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.
How about defunding the DDA? That would free up some cash!
metrichead
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:26 a.m.
Where is Lower Town?
metrichead
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:28 a.m.
Oh, never mind. I found it. Know the area, didn't know the name.
Arieswoman
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 11:20 a.m.
Gobble, gobble, gobble! Anyone here surprised?
brian
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 9:50 p.m.
Not at all.
jns131
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:03 p.m.
I had to laugh at this article and agree with you on the comment. I call it no duh, someone finally woke up to realize this? This has been going on for years. I guess now that their Blimpie Burger is going away someone is finally sounding the alarms. Too little too late Ann Arbor.