Vivienne Armentrout

Wed, Jun 6, 2012 : 10:30 a.m.

You are looking at the new assessments that were just listed. The figure that I gave was from last year's property tax bill. Thank you for accepting my apology. I regret that the project was passed with all those flaws. It reveals a failure of our zoning ordinance.

Jack

Thu, May 17, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.

I got the information regarding your home from the City of Ann Arbor Assessor's office data online, which states that its information is current as of 5/16/12. It lists your SEV at $161,000, making your home value $322,000. I am not saying that you live in a mansion. I know you don't. But a few homes around the corner from us have sold for well under $100,000 and I don't imagine that happens in your neighborhood. We are struggling and this new proposal is going to make it yet more difficult. We are concerned about the buildings being 3 stories. They are out of character and will dominate the neighborhood. (I said in my post there is no building over 1 story in our neighborhood and I apologize. Sequoia Place, a HUD-subsidized senior apartment is two stories.) And yes, we are concerned about the crime. Of course we don't think everyone that will move into the apartment building will be criminals. That is ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to think that an apartment building that may service low-income individuals is not going to court crime. It's just the nature of the beast. I appreciate your providing your name, particularly since you are running for office. However, I hope, if elected, you will give thoughtful consideration to the true impact of such proposals without automatically characterizing people as bozos who object to them and without making statements for intended to curry favor with voters. But I will listen to what you have to say and give you a fair shot at the position.

Jack

Thu, May 17, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.

Apology accepted. We live in the neighborhood kitty corner from the proposed apartment complex. It is a racially and ethnically mixed neighborhood, comprised of persons performing labor jobs for living to those professionally employed. It is a good neighborhood and highly affordable. There are a number of elderly people in the neighborhood and they are vulnerable. We already have a large proportion of the public and low-income housing in Ann Arbor. Across the street is North Maple Estates, unfortunately a fairly constant source of crime. If you look at the crime reports, you will see 700 North Maple listed repeatedly. Further down is Maple Meadows and Hillside Manor. Miller Manor is a way down Miller. Pinelake Village is close to Maple Meadows. Sequoia Place is a HUD-subsidized senior living apartment building and is never any problem. Due to the crime level in this neighborhood, our house insurance rates are higher than the average for Ann Arbor. With the proposed "affordable" apartment building, I am concerned that they will rise once again. Not to mention that two 3-story buildings will dominate the neighborhood. They are out of place. I see a number of people screaming that we are of the NIMBY type. Yet, we seem to have the largest percentage of public and affordable housing in the City. I think what the hecklers really mean is that we are once again a good target for such housing and that they are relieved it is not in their neighborhood. As for the cries of "racism," it seems popular now, and unfortunately particularly among people who think of themselves as liberals, to scream "racism" when they want to silence public discussion.

Vivienne Armentrout

Sat, May 12, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.

Again, I apologize. I was offended by some of the reported comments at the first public hearing. I probably didn't need to put an oar in on the subject, but when I hear rhetoric that sounds discriminatory, it offends me. It sounded as though the complaint was that apartment dwellers are immediately expected to be criminals. From rereading the account, apparently a number of planning commissioners had a similar initial response. There are many other problems with that development, and I'm glad that the PC reconsidered. Neighbors properly brought up traffic concerns and other flaws of the design. This is how site plans should be discussed, not "we don't want those people here". I do have low-income housing within a couple of blocks of my house. (Not public housing) My SEV is currently $156,00. I don't know what that of my immediate neighbors is. But I consider my "neighborhood" to be a good deal larger than my immediate street. I am a neighborhood advocate and this makes me especially sensitive to what sounds like NIMBY language directed against groups of people rather than about the physical aspects of a planned development. This view is quite controversial even among neighborhood advocates because some feel that "health and safety" safeguards should encompass the population who is to be served. Should we, for example, ban housing that is primarily to serve students in neighborhoods because they have loud parties? It is a problem. This has been a learning experience for me and I assure you that I would have kept my opinions to myself if I had known I was going to run for office again. But I will point out that I use my full name in comments, and thus can be held accountable for them.

Jack

Fri, May 11, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.

Yes, Ms. Armentrout, we do live in this neighborhood. And we are quite familiar with the Vesper area where you live as we have friends who live in that area. A very nice neighborhood. Your assessed value puts your home in the over $320,00 range. Our homes are around the $105,000-$160,000 range. Quite a difference. As for your claims about low income housing being located in your neighborhood, it is simply untrue. Your neighborhood is well shielded from any public housing. Ours are in a direct line with public housing and due to that public housing our insurance rates are higher as we are rated as being in an area that has relatively high crime. Which will now go up again. Yes, your comments were insensitive. And yes, we are offended by them. Our concerns are genuine and real. Your neighborhood will never see the problems ours has nor will many of the readers who are so in favor of locating a large, 3-story building in our neighborhood. Just so long as it is not theirs. There are currently no buildings in thisr neighborhood over one-story. The proposed building negatively changes the character of the neighborhood and further devalues our homes to the point for us that this is the first time we have ever considered moving.

Vivienne Armentrout

Sun, May 6, 2012 : 3:35 a.m.

I don't know what the "claim" refers to, unless it is my comments about the Maple Cove development. I commented on a story in this news site because I was offended by comments of some of the potential neighbors about putting apartments near their houses. I'm glad that the Planning Commission had a rehearing and is now considering "health and safety" factors into their decision. Residents who are objecting to a development need to have some political sensitivity and also must become instant experts in city planning codes and procedures in a hurry. Perhaps I was too judgmental in my statements. it was all about the tone. I live just outside the Water Hill neighborhood. My house and those of my immediate neighbors are 50s-era ranches in the $250,000 - $300,000 region. It is quite nice but I don't think "upscale" is a good description. Within a couple of blocks we have a number of duplex and apartment rentals. We also have a lot of Avalon housing nearby. The definition of a "neighborhood" is rather ambiguous. The Ann Arbor Observer basically uses school boundaries, which places both my mid-level neighborhood and the truly upscale north Newport area into the same neighborhood, yet we have little in common. Just to my west is the "Crescents" area with a lot of very small houses, mostly beautifully maintained. I consider them my neighbors. Development in our neighborhoods is guided by zoning. In the case of Maple Cove, it was zoned "office", which got compromised by the Area, Height and Placement "reforms" that went through a year or so ago. Neighborhood advocates objected to some of those provisions, but what was not clear at the time was that residential development in an office zone could take advantage of more liberal set-backs and other provisions and thus be more dense than a residential zoning would be. If Jack is from this neighborhood, I apologize for any insensitivity i have shown to y