Arbor Update

I just as soon not waste the project architects’ time at the meeting with the following question about the guy under the tree standing facing 5th St. reading a newspaper, and the other guy who appears to be pulling a little wagon.

Instead I’ll waste the time of the AU readership.

Question: I understand that such renderings of buildings are facilitated by AutoCad and SketchUp style software, but do such packages include a drop-down menu with options like ‘populate w/peds’ which then shoots you to a gallery of possible images to choose from? In which case, what’s the range of choices? Or do they have to be drawn in by hand?

In Sketchup there’s a pallette of people, from kids to couples with dogs, to insert very easily. AutoCAD I think not, but anything imported into Photoshop can have stock figures cut and pasted easily.

I’m happy to see the project cost coming down somewhat…does anyone know ahead of time (w/out attending the meeting, that is) what advantages the building has being built on the Larcom site, rather than on the earlier-proposed site on S. Fifth?

I was also wondering whether this location has advantages over the Y location, now that that site seems up-for-grabs.

I’m not sure if these are the official reasons or not, but I see 3 reasons to put it near Larcom:

1. It keeps city services all close together rather than spreading them out throughout the downtown;

2. It keeps the Y location (and library lot) open for projects that would contribute more to the vitality of downtown life;

3. The project is controversial enough, to add in the questions of downtown feel and the lost units of affordable housing would just compound the controversy.

Just as an aside, I really wish the city would set up an RSS feed for their announcements, city council packets, and such. It would make it much easier to stay in the loop about what’s going on.

Yeah, I can see that—the mayor once vaguely mentioned the idea that the city hall site could be developed as condos, which wouldn’t be bad, but considering that condo developers are already starting to convert their units back to student apartments (4 Eleven, and the proposed one going up next to it) expecting that the city hall site would actually get developed is maybe a little optimistic? And who wants even more student apartment housing? I also personally think that a convention center would work better on the S. Fifth site(s). City hall workers are already a captive audience for downtown business ;) so nothing gained by relocating them. And then where would a convention center go? The city hall site would be terrible for that, and that leaves the Brown block which I would not want to see developed into a convention center.

If anyone attends the meeting tonight (that is happening right now), I’d be interested to hear a brief report, thanks. I’m probably not the only one.

I was at the meeting and the Ann Arbor News had a good write-up here. I think the building is OK visually, although the materials look kind of cheap and it is hard to see how it will relate to other buildings around it. I think there is a tension between wanting it to be a cheap, efficient, monumental, useful, and attractive building. The architects have done what they can given the constraints.

The North side (Ann Street) of the project was somewhat controversial. The people on that side were upset that it seems to be the “back” of the building with few windows and less landscaping than the rain gardens on the South side. However, I’m not sure having an office building with a lot of windows looking onto a residential area is a great thing either. Some of the design decisions had not been made (color of the masonry/metal materials/etc.) so it will be interesting to see if any of the exterior changes.

The “green” aspects were pretty impressive. They have thought a lot about the issues. I would hope if it is built that it does actually make LEEDs gold status.

The April 30th meeting was attended by many prominent local officials and activists. Judge Julie Creal came (by herself) and a number of members of City Council were present including Sabra Briere, Joan Lowenstein and Mr. Juarez. Police Chief Barnett Jones came in later during the presentation. Attorney/activists Blaine Coleman and David Cahill also attended; Cahill was accompanied by Sabra Briere. Members of the audience were allowed to speak and a supporter of Ask Voters First laid out an excellent presentation outlining her opposition to the project. Blaine Coleman presented his views that the monies earmarked for the project would be better spent toward funding U-M scholarships for minority youths;Councilperson Juarez appeared to be transfixed by the presence and arguments advanced by Mr.Coleman. It is also worthy of note that there has been a website recently set up at www.askvotersfirst.org that details the group’s positions and its activities as well as statements from its supporters, including Sabra Briere and Mr. Juarez. Ms. Briere feels there is too much “gold plating” in the proposed facility as many of the features are wholly unnecessary; Mr. Suarez opined that $47 million would be better spent on social improvements rather than “force and punishment”. I agree with the goals of Ask Voters First and endorse their activities. As someone who regularly practices in the district court system and interacts with court administrators, I have an opportunity to witness the operation of district courts thoughout southeastern Michigan and am familiar with the customary and usual cost of court buildings and functions. I believe that the proposed police/court building in Ann Arbor is unreasonable and excessive given the relative needs of the court and police; for the sake of brevity, I would adopt the arguments of Sabra Briere on this issue as disclosed on the Ask Voters First website. I would encourage all to sign the petitions being circulated to place the issue on the August 5th primary ballot.

Sorry, Mark, but I wasn’t at the meeting. Also, I assume you meant Ron Suarez.

The materials distributed by the City at the April 30 public forum on the courts/police facility say that the planning for this project began in June, 2004. They also include the statement that: “To date the City has made many cost reductions without materially reducing services.” The money not spent has wound up in the various pots of money that the City wants to use for the project.

Here is the beginning of a list of service cuts within the past few years that are apparently not considered “material”:

Project Grow eliminated (Fiscal Year Ending 2008)

Adaptive Recreation, a program adapted to people with special needs or limitations, eliminated (FYE 2008)

Cobblestone Farm day camp eliminated

Pickup of appliances or other large objects eliminated

Tot swim program cut from two locations to one

Garlic mustard removal in parks, and other normal maintenance in parks, shifted to neighborhood organizations

Use of ordinary containers for compostables eliminated (FYE 2008)

Animal control officers eliminated

Park rangers eliminated

13 full-time equivalent civilian positions in the Police Department abolished (FYE 2008)

Replacement of defective sidewalk slabs shifted onto homeowners

Staff for effective snow plowing no longer provided

I would appreciate any additions or corrections to this list. If the project is built, we can expect many more service cuts that are supposedly not “material” in the future.

Project Grow eliminated (Fiscal Year Ending 2008)

This one, at least, seems to require some clarification, David, given that “Project Grow is a private, non-profit organization….”, according to their web site.

Replacement of defective sidewalk slabs shifted onto homeowners

Are you saying that the city used to pay the cost of such replacement?

What is Cobblestone Farm day camp?

You’re right that some stuff on that list could be clearer. What I meant on Project Grow, is that City funding was eliminated.

And yes, I believe the City used to pay the cost of sidewalk slab replacement before it began the bizarre current program of having interns walk around looking for defects, requiring homeowners to find their own contractors and pay them, and then having the work judged by City inspectors. My belief may be just an urban myth. If anyone here was required to pay for his/her sidewalk repairs longer than five years aog, please speak up!

Oh, how could I forget:

Holiday tree pickups reduced from two to one

David, I think saying that the city has made many of these cuts in order to fund the Courts-Police facility is greatly exaggerated.

We have owned our house for twelve years and the city has not paid for sidewalk repairs during that time. The Project Grow support was only about $7000 and there is some discussion as to if they even wanted the funds from the city. I imagine most of the other points could also be interpreted in many different ways. Take the reduction in the Police Force: if (as is pretty generally acknowledged) we don’t provide a decent place to house the regular police staff, we can’t exactly get all annoyed when civilian positions are eliminated. The compostable container change is a reasonable upgrade which will help some of the staff physically, keep areas looking nicer, and I’ve talked to a lot of my neighbors and they are for it (as am I). I spent much of yesterday morning pulling garlic mustard in a neighbor’s yard, it would be fiscally foolish to try to do this with anything but volunteer labor and less effective since a staff person would only be able to do it every so often and teaching people who use the parks on a regular basis to recognize it and pull it whenever they see it makes much more sense.

As a City, we have been talking about a new Courts-Police facility for twenty years. Obviously doing nothing isn’t working. We have spent millions on this proposal and that proposal. There will never be a perfect time or a perfect proposal. This seems to be a pretty good proposal at a pretty good time. I think we need to get on with it. At least it will give people something concrete to complain about for the next forty years.

“The Project Grow support was only about $7000 and there is some discussion as to if they even wanted the funds from the city.”

Oh please. What nonprofit wants to turn away support from the city? Apparently Margie Teall had a conversation with someone who said “they were okay with that”. This was brought up tonight when I spoke on behalf of continuing support for Project Grow. I actually spoke with the ED and heard that $7000 was 20% of their budget. They have two part-time staff who spend most of their time administering and maintaining the gardens. This just means more fundraising for them. The fees from their garden plots are on a sliding scale so that they are affordable to everyone.

What kind of city can spend millions on many projects (not just city hall) and can’t afford “only $7000” to support a food security issue like allowing people to have community garden space? It is an environmental and social equity issue. Community gardens are the way that people without property, the money to join a CSA, and of lower income can provide fresh vegetables for their own tables.

Oh please. What nonprofit wants to turn away support from the city?

If the money comes with too many strings and too much hassle and is up for a vote every year, yes, it might not be worth it. It sounded like there was quite a bit of interest in adding that money back into the budget and if Project Grow could make the case (not someone speaking on behalf of Project Grow, but someone at the organization itself), I think that money would be added in. This budget cut was discussed in a post I made here on AU in 2005. Did Project Grow make the case with the City to keep the money at that time or since then?

Leslie Science Center funding reduced; management outsourced to a private nonprofit.

The point I think David Cahill is trying to make with his list ignores the fact that every single city in Michigan has had to economize in the worst economy in decades. A2 seems to be weathering the storm way, way better than others.

Using David Cahill’s standards it would be impossible for government to become more efficient. With 85% of their operating funds going to staff costs the only way to become more efficient is to have fewer staff. I applaud reduction of the government paying for things that the private sector can provide. The plan for the Science Center is an excellent example of government/non-profit innovation.

Look at what the city has done in the middle of the state’s budget crunch… With 200 fewer staff they have the money to pay for long neglected capitol improvements. Don’t we now have a new Broadway Bridge, a new maintenance facility that makes room for a new Greenway (Yea!) and now a funded plan for a new police station plus court house that has been needed for 20 years?

Back in the 90’s in this town, with the money flowing, nothing was done, this has changed for the better.

Raising funds for capitol projects is usually not the problem for large institutions, failing to make cuts in the recurring budget to stay balanced is much more dangerous as is failing behind on infrastructure replacement and updating. It would be a huge mistake to use the capitol they have saved for the new building, on everyday operating expenses.

I also note that David has himself made a point of saying that with a declining crime rate, why do we need better space for judges and police? Now he laments having 13 fewer civilian employees in the police dept? Why would the city need them with an ever falling crime rate?

There is an answer for just about everything on his list, going to carts for compostables is a good idea, the whole council voted for it. The city never paid for sidewalk slabs in the past and why would I want to pay for all the slabs some slum landlord as been neglecting for years?

Same goes for large appliances and oh, by the way, the city of Ann Arbor has never, ever had a reputation for being good at snow removal. There was no service cut-back. Anyway, this was the winter with the most snow in history! Who thinks the city should carry more employees just to be ready for a freak winter? We all survived, it was winter, it snowed a lot, get over it.

And finally, does David disagree with his wife who has called for a whole new city hall? Would he make the same arguments against it?

The county wants the city out of their court house, they have their own plans, the police need a new headquarters. I agree with Julie, this building has been needed and talked about for years. Millions have already been spent, let’s go forward and finish the job so the city can stop paying $700,000 + a year in rent for the next 50 years. Why shouldn’t the city have a facility for the police and courts that we can all be proud of?

Laura, the City government is being deliberately “hollowed out” in order to pay for this project. There has been no money for anything for the past several years, except to build up savings for this project.

If you cut out recreation for the handicapped, cut funding for Project Grow, and build a big building, that is one set of priorities.

Such a set is not mine. Instead, it sounds like priorities that Republicans would set.

With regard to snow removal, AA has set a policy of not plowing until 4 inches of snow has fallen. Surrounding units of government don’t have such a policy. On a typical snowy days, AA’s streets are covered, while Ypsi’s streets are plowed down to the pavement.

Also, this project will not result in a new City Hall. In fact, this project will not even fix its leaking roofs!

Why not turn the new city/court into one gigantic chicken house to feed Ann arbor residents eggs!
What a waste of council time even talking about an ordinance like this. Goofy

What a waste of council time even talking about an ordinance like this. Goofy

True, they should have just passed the ordinance without all this discussion. If my neighbor can have dogs, or parrots, or rabbits, or children, no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to have chickens, which are actually useful.

David: I am sorry but again, you miss the point. The state has cut way back on the funds they used to share with cities and all cites have reacted, most not nearly as well as A2. As I said, in #16, A2 seems to be doing well despite this and they have even been replacing worn out infrastructure. The efficiencies they have created are exactly what city government needed.

And guess what, human service funding from the general fund has not been cut over these years and they are expanding it by something like $300,000 this year.

You again fail to face up to the core issues of the courts/police building.

Did you not see the recent news article about the letter from the County Administrator? The city has to move out of the county court house because the county has their own plan for the building. The county has been saying this for a couple of years now.

And please, don’t say a few County Commissioners are willing to talk about it. Of course they are, what politician would ever say they won’t talk about something?

And please, don’t say they city should ask voters first. Why? The city does not need a millage for this just as they did not need a vote before they sold bonds to pay for the Broadway Bridges. They sold bonds like $25 million when they built the maintenance center and no one said a word and I heard that everyone on council recently voted for $60 million in bonds for sewer and water improvements. Why don’t you say that should have gone to the voters?

Everybody on council seems to agree a new police station is called for and not building means the city is doomed to pay over $700,000 in rent each year and the police would be trapped in temporary quarters for another three decades.

As for snow: A2 has never had a reputation for being great at snow clean-up so there was no service cut back. They also use way less salt than most towns to protect the river. Besides, this winter had the most snow in history and other cities (Grand Rapids for one) have the 4 inch rule. Do you really think the city should carry extra staff to be ready in a freak winter after all the mild winters in a row?

It was a tough winter, it snowed, get over it.

Laura, apparently you did not read the entire letter from the County Administrator. He said there was no clear consensus on the Board of Commissioners (which, he said, makes the decision) on what to do.

Also, you have failed to separate the issue of the police station (which could be remodeled for less than $5 million) from the present plan for a giant courts building at a cost of $47 million (plus the cost of financing). The court caseload is steady. There is no need for a steel-clad court building.

Whether or not a particular bond issue goes to the voters is up to the voters. Most bond issues are uncontroversial. The one to finance the gold-plated court building plainly is not, or there would not be petitioners going door-to-door to force a vote.

As to the snow, if the City were not hell-bent on building this stupid project, there would be plenty of money to (gasp) add staff to handle hard winters.

But service to citizens is not the priority, is it?

“The one to finance the gold-plated court building plainly is not, or there would not be petitioners going door-to-door to force a vote.”

But the relevant measure of whether it’s controversial is the number of signatures collected in the end.

I’m guessing that the initiative will fall short of the standard, even with positions for petition circulators advertised in last Sunday’s A2 News Bulletin Board (compensation of $1.50 per valid signature) ... and even with AVF canvassing large-crowd events like the recent Huron River Watershed Council rain barrel drop off.

But I would think that AVF could collect signatures numbering in the few thousands at least.

A question for AVF: if AVF doesn’t collect enough signatures to make it worth submitting them for validation then how will AVF officially assess whether a signature is valid for payment purposes? I suppose if it were me, I’d just eyeball it and say, Okay here’s your cash, Mr. Petition Circulator. By the premise of the scenario, it’s not like there’s huge potential for petition circulators to defraud AVF.

A different question: Suppose there’s 11,000 sigs collected—so just a bit over the number required. Then both sides will want each sig to be scrutinized super-carefully. What public servant gets that fun job? And what sort of technology is used? And what is the standard? I mean, verifying that a particular name and a particular address is a registered City voter is a fairly objective assessment. But what about the sig itself? Can the person who’s validating say, “Hey, I know Fred, and that’s not the way Fred signs his name, so I’m going to call Fred up and check with him”?

Re: snowplowing

I think it’s almost uncontroversial that Ypsilanti does a better job of clearing snow than Ann Arbor.

This past winter I had occasion to bicycle Packard St. from downtown Ann Arbor to the water tower in Ypsilanti. I set off in the morning, after a significant accumulation of snow had fallen overnight. There was a point east of Ypsi High School where the road turned from snow-packed to wet pavement.

However, it’s worth pointing out that there’s a substantial piece of road between Ann Arbor’s responsibility and Ypsi’s responsibility that is handled by the County Road Commission. Their part was also snow-packed.

So it might well be that Ypsi is extra specially good at snow removal compared with all surrounding municipalities. (As opposed to Ann Arbor being especially bad.)

“There is no need for a steel-clad court building.”

“The one to finance the gold-plated court building plainly is not…”

I’m confused. Is the court building going to be steel clad or gold plated? From the drawings in the News it’s hard to tell.

Because I can get behind a steel-clad courthouse, no question about it, but gold-plated seems a little extreme. Still, I think the crucial thing is that this courthouse be GIANT. I can’t abide a dinky courthouse. Courthouses are like jails, they should always be giant.

And an aside to HD: I had an awesome time on our bike date to Plymouth to pick the rabbit shit. Thanks again for pulling me in the trailer!

PSD!,

You’re quite welcome. It was nice to have somebody along who I could chat with along the way. And it was nice to hear some encouraging words as I pedaled up some of those slight inclines along Plymouth Road. They’re steeper than they look when hauling a load.

From what I understand, standard practice for certifying petitions is to audit them. Take a sample of signatures on a sample of pages and see how many of them check out. I don’t know what happens if it’s a squeaker like HD proposes that would be within the margin or error for the audit.

Dave’s commented that the city could fix the police offices for $5 million. When I look at the plans for the new building, I see that they’ve made that pretty low-use space, so I wonder:

1. Can we really fix them to where they would be well-functioning for $5 million?
2. Can we address the concern that there is very little interview space or opportunities for privacy in the current space?
3. With a new building, we could build the building, then move the police over, then renovate the Larcom basement. If we don’t build new, what do we do with our police while we renovate?

HD and Chuck, the practice locally is to check each signature. In 1990, when my wife led the petition drive to place a Zone of Reproductive Freedom in the City Charter (see now Chapter 20), the petitioners succeeded by only three signatures!

I think the clerk’s people first check the printed name on a petition. If they can’t find the printed name, then they search on the address to see if they can find a match. All of this is done electronically using the state’s Qualified Voter File.

Larry Kestenbaum may be able to provide more details.

I am happy to report I have noticed petition circulators gathering signatures to put the $31 million bond proposal on the ballot for the August 5th primary. They seem to be diligent and hopefully enough valid signatures will be collected. This is truly a populist movement akin to the Howard Jarvis inspired Proposition 13 movement in California in the late 1970s which also spawned the Howard Tisch and Dick Headlee referendums in 1978 in Michigan. A victory by Ask Voters First in August will be a victory by taxpayers and ordinary citizens who want tax revenues expended toward the public good rather than luxurious facilities for government officials.

“They seem to be diligent”

That is because they are getting paid $1.50/signature. From what I have seen, they have been badgering everyone who happens to move and most of the people gathering signatures have absolutely no idea what they are gathering them for. Frankly, I find it embarrasing.

I was addressed by a petition circulator at 5th and Liberty Street on my way downtown this evening for a lovely performance of Aristophanes’ “The Assemblywomen”.

Here’s how it went:

AVF: Would you like to sign a petition to give voters a voice on whether they should be charged 2 million dollars a year in interest?

HD: Hmmm, well, don’t we get a voice on that sort of thing through our City Council representative?

AVF: No. Not at this time.

HD: Not at this time? Why not? What’s special about this time that we’re not represented by our representatives on City Council?

AVF: Because this is a decision being made by a judge and six of his colleagues.

HD: A judge?? Why is a judge deciding whether we’re going to pay 2 million dollars?

AVF: Because the money is going to build a new courthouse, where the judge works.

HD: Oh. So who’s the judge deciding this?

AVF: I don’t know his name.

HD: Hmm. Okay, well I think I’m going to allow my voice to be represented through my City Council representative. Good luck, though. [Exit stage right]

In contrast to Juliew’s description, I must say I did not feel badgered. But this particular fellow certainly did not have a clear grasp of the issues surrounding the petition.

We were at a party yesterday when the neighbor (not invited to the party) crashed it for signatures. Not cool, yo. When she found out it was a going away party for a couple of “teh gays” she couldn’t fathom why anyone would leave Ann Arbor, MI. Sigh.

The Bureau of Elections and the state Board of Canvassers use sampling methods with statewide petitions. However, locally, we look up and attempt to validate every signature.

It is great to see someone mention two of the greatest statesmen in the history of Michigan politics – Robert Emanuel Tisch and Richard Headlee. Bob Tisch served as Shiawassee Drain Commissioner during the 1970’s and 80’s and was later a national vice-presidential nominee of the U. S. Taxpayers Party. Dick Headlee narrowly lost the race for Michigan governor in 1982 and later played a key role in the John Engler upset election over Governor Blanchard in 1990; his Headlee Amendment, passed in 1978, transformed Michigan politics and empowered the average citizen. If Bob Tisch were alive today he would be proud of the efforts of ordinary citizens to put the matter of the bond issuance to a public vote. Given severe time constraints Ask Voters First undoubtedly had to rush to put as many petition gatherers on the streets as soon as possible, so it is not surprising that some circulators were not effectively trained and may have included persons with social inadequacies. What is important is that the issue of a voter referendum has widespread grass-roots support along a broad cross-section of citizens. These include rank-and-file Democrats , Republicans, elected officials, as well as various vocal activists including David Cahill, Karen Sidney and others; some are even outside the Ask Voters First organization, including Blaine Coleman. If I were a principal in Ask Voters First, I would, however, likely ensure that petition circulators were polite and well-informed enough to present the issues in the petition cordially and intelligently.My overriding concern is that enough valid signatures get on the petition documents to put the matter on the August 5th ballot; if that happens, I have little doubt the bond will be defeated by voters. The specific political aims of Ask Voters First or its principals are immaterial as AVF is merely a vehicle to make sure the matter is placed on the ballot as a voter referendum issue. I, as many others, am disgusted at the “judicial acrimony” that has been a sideshow for the police/court proposed construction project; I am, also, appalled at the unmitigated gall of certain officials who want to lavish all these tens of millions of dollars on a facility while there is a national major home foreclosure crisis that has affected Ann Arbor residents on a scale that exceeds that of the general U.S. population. This is not mentioning all of the local social programs that shall be affected if the police/court project is constructed as envisioned; the mayor has already warned about this aspect of financing the proposed building.There is no doubt in my mind that voters should have the opportunity to vote on and ultimately scuttle this entire project. It seems that government always ignores our poor, our disavantaged minorities and young persons when we could provide helpful social programs as a safety net and as preventative measures, but is always so generous at providing police, court and corrections “services” to these same disadvantaged individuals when they are alleged to have violated our laws. Spend tax revenues to help, not inflict punishment on our citizens.

I’m glad to see the petition circulators are getting out. According to a brief item in Sunday’s AA News, there are now 100 circulators, with more to come. There has never been a local political campaign with this many workers. Interesting.

With regard to HD’s report, it would be accurate to say that a candidate for judge and six of his colleagues are behind the project. That candidate would be Councilmember Chris Easthope; his colleagues would be the other five councilmembers who voted in favor of the project.

So the question I have is who stands to gain from inadequate police and court facilities? Who benefits from low moral and discontent among the cops and courts? Who would come out ahead even if he or she spent more than $10,000 collecting signatures?

Golly, who would spend that much money just to avoid a few dollars in interest payments a year?

I have a cynical hunch, but I’m curious what others think.

If we remodel the existing police department space, then neither the police nor the court will have inadequate facilities.

Oop! Here is another budget cut proposed for FYE 2009:

Budget for the HOME program, which rehabilitates older houses to use for affordable housing, reduced from $2.6 million to $0.9 million.

At any rate, it sounds like it’s a good thing it was moved from the parcels on S. Fifth—didn’t need them left empty in yet another endless round of wrangling over multi-parcel deals.

I’m generally in favor of keeping plans as simple as possible, and costs as low as possible, for city buildings, so I view the petition as more or less sensible, regardless of the motivations and tactics of those who wrote it.

Having said that, it doesn’t seem like the world’s worst building, though it does seem on the large side, and echoes the architecture of the back side of the old MIBell/Ameritech building (now AT&T, I suppose) more than anything else. I assume this is deliberate?

Ah yes, DC and the anti folks would have us believe that all the space needs could be solved by remodeling the police basement. But wait, haven’t they been crammed into a space that was never designed for them for 40 years? And how would that help the city stop paying over $700 K and rapidly rising) per year in rent and what about having to leave the county court house by 2010? Its all easy if you just avoid the facts.

Plus, all the most experienced council members, the same ones who have guided the city through years of state and federal budget cuts, the same people who trimmed the budget so the city could survive this decade; have suddenly gone loco, off the deep end and it is only the unexperienced new council members supported by DC who have any sense. They know better.

By the way, DC’s claim about the home funds is just another example of misleading numbers. If there is a cut in the “home funds” budget it cannot be attributed to the city, “home funds” are federal funds. The feds have been cutting housing money since Ronald Ray-gun. The sad part is, he must know this but misrepresents it any way.

That’s a good point—I would be interested in hearing where the courts would supposedly go if this building were not approved by either Council or a direct vote…