Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Detroit Ruins Film

Posted by Scott Trudeau on 18. March 2005

The anonymous urban explorer at detroitblog writes about tonight’s screening of Detroit: Ruin of a City at Rackham Ampitheater as part of the Ruins of Modernity conference.

I heard the filmmakers on local TV news this week and saw them in some clips from the movie, droning on in pedantic, haughty tones, lamenting the ruin of a city they’ve never been to before and apparently know nothing about. One of them referred in condescending tones to the Michigan Central Station as a “monument to political impotence.” Unlike the European Union, I suppose. Typical Euros—wave the magic wand of government and voila! Everything will be better. Forget decisive factors such as population loss, economic collapse, etc. It’s the lack of will on the part of our bureaucracies that’s at fault here.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the article refers to the quite-famous Fisher Body 21 plant as “Carter Color,” based solely on a subsidiary logo painted on a water tower. Great local reporting skills as usual, Freep reporters. Nice to know you put in the time on research. Jeez, even a quick Google address search could’ve clued you in on some history.

But all you need to know about the film is this—there is not one mention of Coleman Young. It’s like doing a film about space travel without mentioning Neil Armstrong.

> detroitblog entry
> Detroit Free Press: A CRITICAL LOOK AT DETROIT: 2 filmmakers team up to scrutinize the city block by block
> Upcoming.org entry
> Ruins of Modernity Conference
> Detroit: Ruin of a City web site

UPDATE: This showing sold out. They’re planning a second screening, but I’m not sure when. If you made it in, I’d like to hear thoughts on it.

Comment [12]

An Idea for Local Peace Groups and Local Peace Activists by Ralph Nader

Posted by MarkDilley on 18. March 2005

“Dear Member of Congress (Representative and two Senators):

According to a Harris poll last month, 59 percent of Americans want US troops brought home within the next year. We are among them. You are not listening to us. Here is what we propose: To meet with you in a public auditorium with the media invited on [insert date]_ when you say you will back in your state (district). We wish to discuss specifically with you the following issues:

1. Do you support continued funding of the Iraq War and occupation without a specific exit strategy and timetable?

2. Will you announce an exit strategy for Iraq?

3. Will you investigate contracting abuses found by DoD auditors regarding the reconstruction of Iraq?

4. Will you investigate the $9 billion dollars unaccounted for in the Coalition Provisional Authority budget in Iraq?

5. How will you hold President Bush accountable to Congress?

If we do not hear favorably from you within a week of your receipt of this email (or letter or fax), we will double the number of signatures and renew the request.

If one week later we do not hear from you, we will again double the number of signatures and present some of us at your local office so you and your staff can meet your constituents.

If a week later we do not hear from you, we will peacefully and diligently street march in front of your local office to secure your attention.

You have often said how much you want to enjoy hearing from your constituents – well, here we are. Please do not take this as a hostile message; rather it is an effort to indicate to you the serious urgency we take to ending the occupation of Iraq and bringing U.S. troops home as soon as possible. Civilians, little children and soldiers are dying or being seriously injured every day.

In the meantime, we would appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. Do you have a summary of Paul Bremer’s vast directives which are still the governing authority of Iraq? These include extending Saddam’s ban on trade union organizing and allow a U.S. takeover of Iraq businesses.

2. Have you protested to President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld that they do not officially disclose the injuries to our troops there, diseases and severe mental trauma when they do not occur in combat situations – even if they are evacuated from Iraq? If yes, send us a copy of your letter. If not, why not?

3. Will you sign a simple pledge that henceforth you will vote against any attack on another nation unless Congress itself declares war as required by the U.S. Constitution? See: The United States Constitution’s War Powers Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

4. Finally, would you propose a very selective service draft just for the children of members of Congress? The purpose of this request is that such a draft will focus the responsible attention on members of Congress in terms of realistic risks and consequences from the initiation of military hostilities.

Sincerely,

(signed by a group of constituents)

cc: members of the press and many other interested parties ”

via Common Dreams

Comment [52]

Council to consider resolution to kill DDA plan

Posted by Murph on 17. March 2005

A clash between the Downtown Development Authority and a group called the Friends of the Ann Arbor Greenway looks like it will climax on Monday, 21 March, with a proposed City Council resolution that would set aside three city-owned sites as parkland, derailing plans to redevelop some city parking lots into residential and retail uses.

At the Ann Arbor City Council meeting of 7 March, the DDA presented a proposal that would condense parking from three city-owned sites into a single parking structure on one of those sites, at 1st and Wililam. The two freed sites (the decaying structure at 1st and Washington and the Klines Lot behind Gratzi) could be sold for development, with the DDA suggesting a mix of retail, affordable housing, and market-rate housing. This plan, says the DDA, would provide a number of advantages, including,

  • Putting more residents in the downtown area would allow them increased access to jobs and services, benefiting both those residents and downtown merchants.
  • Adding residents to the downtown will help support such amenities as full-scale downtown grocery stores and extended transit hours.
  • Selling the two sites will bring in an estimated $6 million to the City (which is currently expected to cover budget deficits only through cash infusions from the DDA), and resulting development will bring in $1-2 million in property taxes annually.
  • Replacing two parking lots with business and residential uses will provide stronger links between the Main Street area and areas west of downtown.
  • On the 1st and William site, the parking construction project would include a section of the site developed into a park, a section of pedestrian/bike greenway, safety improvements to the crossings of the Ann Arbor Railroad, cleanup of onsite soil contamination, and upgrades to the underground Allen Creek Drain within the parking budget, rather than those things being paid for out of separate funds.

The DDA’s plan has been under development for the last 18 months, and implements many recommendations of the 1988 Central Area Master Plan. A group called the Friends of the Greenway, with supporters concentrated in the Old West Side neighborhood beyond the 1st and William site, however, objects to the idea of building a new structure, and have demanded that the 1st and Washington site be purchased from the City by the Parks Department and turned entirely into parkland. Citing a lack of large parks in the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods, the Friends also want the old County Road Commission site at 415 W. Washington, next to the new YMCA, and the City Yards on North Main to be converted entirely to parkland as the City moves the current functions of those sites to a service center further from downtown.

Additionally, the Friends claim that replacing the parking is unnecessary, and have compiled a photographic survey of public parking lots in the downtown to support their claim. This view is contested by Main St. area merchants, who say business will suffer if parking is not replaced (and some are worried business will suffer even if parking is collected onto a site further away); the DDA was initially slow to offer any countering evidence, but is now starting on a study of parking utilization.

While the DDA had hoped for a Council resolution at next week’s meeting that would accept their plan and allow for more detailed planning to begin, Councilmembers Easthope (D-5th) and Johnson (D-1st) have instead brought forward a resolution that would set aside for parkland the three sites demanded by the Friends. Not only would this action, in the words of DDA member Roger Hewitt, “completely kill” the chance of redeveloping the other two sites, it would eliminate any chance of reusing or redeveloping any portion of the two service yards, such as the idea of rehabbing buildings on the 415 West Washington site into artists’ studio space that would replace that space lost in the Tech Center.

Despite the fact that the Friends have claimed the DDA’s plan is moving too quickly and without enough public input, Easthope and Johnson’s proposal for Monday’s meeting will come with less than two weeks notice (and that only in an Ann Arbor News story that noted Easthope was planning to bring such a proposal) and does not include a public hearing component. While the DDA’s proposal is only conceptual and would require further discussion before any concrete action is taken (specifying only what uses would exist on sites and leaving open questions of site plan, specific mixes of use, etc.), Easthope and Johnson’s proposal would commit three city lots to eventual park use, effectively closing discussion on those sites before it has truly started.

Previous ArborUpdate items:
> 9 March, Ongoing Greenway drama: Easthope announces intent to kill DDA plan
> 8 March, Greenway advocates slam DDA plans for downtown parking

Comment [55]

MSA Votes No to Divestment

Posted by Ari Paul on 16. March 2005

In case you have not heard, the Michigan Student Assembly voted against divesting from Israel.

Comment [9]

Where There's Smoke, You're Fired

Posted by MarkDilley on 14. March 2005

As much as I don’t like cigarettes, I don’t think criminalization is the answer.

“Smoking is frequently in the news. Weyco, a Michigan-based health care benefits company, announced recently that it would terminate any employees who persisted in smoking, on or off the job.”

via Workers Comp Insider

Comment [13]

Triangle Foundation and Transgender Michigan present:

Posted by MarkDilley on 14. March 2005

Michigan’s First-ever

Transgender Lobby Day

Make History. Change Lives.

When: Thursday March 17th 9 AM – 4 PM
Where: 424 Capitol Building in Lansing, MI
Who: You! No experience necessary. Need not be Trans.

Lobby training and lunch provided.

For more information, Contact Kirstin Leiby: kirleiby@umich.edu

Cosponsored by: Affirmations Lesbian and Gay Community Center, Blue Water Pride, Detroit Black Gay Pride, Faith Action Network, Kalamazoo Gay and Lesbian Resource Center, Metropolitan Community Church of Detroit, Michigan Equality, Perceptions, PFLAG Downriver, PFLAG Jackson, Ruth Ellis Center

directions via .gov via TinyUrl

>also see Transgender Bender: Moving Beyond the Binary System

Justice for Janitors

Posted by MarkDilley on 14. March 2005

“SEIU Local 26 in Minnesota represents over 35 janitors who work for Aramark and clean the General Mills corporate complex in Golden Valley, Minnesota. The union recently settled a grievance in a member’s favor, winning her a large cash settlement.

In retaliation Aramark unnecessarily and unjustly fired nearly 20 workers. These workers need our help while the local fights to regain these member’s jobs.”

via David Grenier

Fired Wal-Mart Worker On Hunger Strike

Posted by MarkDilley on 14. March 2005

“A Polish immigrant involved in Poland’s Solidarity movement in the 1980s is on a hunger strike after being fired from a Loveland, Colo., Wal-Mart Distribution Center.

Ryszard Tomtas was fired Tuesday for ‘horseplay’ he said, but he believes he was really fired because he was trying to organize a union at the center.”

via rawblogXport via TheDenverChannel.com

Peter Allen proposes more ambitious Y redevelopment plan

Posted by Murph on 13. March 2005

The City received several bids at the beginning of March from developers interested in purchasing and redeveloping the old YMCA site, which the City had purchased from the Y in order to guarantee the preservation of the Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing on the site. The City will be reviewing the bid proposals (which include not just purchase price, but also some indication of the developers’ vision for the site) through March and April and picking a winning bid sometime in May.

Peter Allen & Associates, however, have submitted an unusual bid that urges the City not to sell during this bid cycle, but to let them serve as a consultant and, in conjunction with the City, do preliminary site planning and provide better specifications for what the City would like and will allow from a redevelopment. Peter Allen would not undertake final development after this process, but proposes that the City put out a new RFP with more information for the eventual developer, raising the value of the Y site by allowing developers more certainty. Allen has made the proposal available through his company’s website, entitled A Better Redevelopment Plan for the Y Site to Fund Ann Arbor’s Social and Environmental Agenda (pdf), and includes the following outline in the executive summary:

Our proposal uses the Y RFP to illustrate how the city, with creativity, enthusiasm and ingenuity, can utilize all of its downtown holdings to further enhance the excitement and livability of downtown Ann Arbor.
  1. Engage us and the DDA to take the next few months days to preliminarily master plan three downtown city-owned sites: the Y, the AATA and the Fifth Avenue surface parking lot. A preliminary site plan will enable the city to:
    • ask for and receive more for the value of their land & in annual taxes;
    • ask for and receive more or higher-quality affordable housing;
    • ask for and receive greater downtown density;
    • ask for and receive a greater diversity of residential income levels;
    • ask for and receive a more pedestrian friendly, greener design.

  2. Reissue the RFP by September 1. Our proposal defends the following concept in detail, but in short: preliminarily site planning the Y, AATA and 5th Avenue parking lot leads to less risk for developers which in turn enables the city to maximize the land’s financial value to fund the community agenda.

The result? We believe that by spending 90 days to restructure the RFP, the city can get at least double the current invested amount of $3.5 million. Importantly, this won’t delay actual site development. We’ll be doing the same steps the developer would do themselves after winning the bid. By doing it up front ourselves, we’ll get the city more money and still have a redeveloped Y Site in 2-3 years.

I have seen pieces of one of the other responses to the RFP, but am still trying to track down and copies of all of the responses from the city, which will be mirrored on this site when I can get them. Considering the import and scope of this proposal – Allen’s suggestions in the RFP make this redevelopment project possibly larger in land area, city revenues, and number and type of housing units than the DDA’s proposal for other city-owned sites, presented last week.

(Note: I am currently enrolled in a real estate class taught by Peter Allen, and so am likely to be biased towards this proposal even after seeing the others.)

Comment [10]

Impartiality of MSA Elections Officials Questioned

Posted by Rob Goodspeed on 13. March 2005


From: blhanson at umich.edu
To: msa.reps at umich.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:15:43 -0500
Subject: Fair election?

Dear Fellow Students,

I’m writing in response to a troublesome message I received on my facebook concerning the upcoming election. Every democratic society is built on the ideal of one man and one vote. In this system, every citizen, regardless of status or privilege, can exercise their right to vote with the assurance that their vote will count. I am sad to say that I don’t believe the student body can vote with that promise that every vote will count. Every free election must be based on fairness and free competition. However, without these basic components an election will become a mere public spectacle fit for a second rate dictatorship.

Each MSA election is monitored by an election board whose simple duty is to make sure that all parties whether they are DAAP, MAIZE RAGE, or Students 4 Michigan plays by the rules. How can we expect this to be accomplished when it is clearly and inherently biased towards one candidate. Let’s take a step back and assess some of the shady relationships between Jesse Levine and election
board members.

Before we can look at the board, we have to examine the man that selected them—Russ Garber. How could MSA allow him to select these members? It’s public knowledge that he endorsed Levine. And why shouldn’t he? They are fraternity brothers at Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) This obvious conflict of interest is confirmed by the choice he submitted to the assembly for election directory—Brian Doughty.

This election fraud is continued with the appointment of Brian Doughty as election director. Its well known that Brian was a MSA rep for the Students First Party, the same party Levine was in… and is doesn’t stop there. Brian was in a contentious election for his engineering seat in 2003. Guess who was for his chair for his re-election efforts? You got…Jesse Levine. How can we expect Brian to seriously handle any complaints or grievances against Levine if Levine was instrumental in keeping him on the assembly.

Another suspicious appointment is the selection of MSA President, Jason Mironov. Jesse and Jason are known personal friends. They are also classmates in University Course 375. Their friendship is long and solid. Mironov helped Levine in his 2002-03 election to MSA. Levine ran with Jason on his Students First slate, when Mironov ran for President. To reward Levine for his efforts, Mironov appointed him as Student General Counsel. And we are expected to believe that Jason will fairly monitor this election with his friend as one of the presidential candidate. This notion is both naive and goes against all common sense.

But Levine can prove that all the aforementioned is false by proving that he is worthy of our trust and support. In order to earn our votes, he should call on both Brian and Jason and others on the board with similar conflicts of interests to resign. New and impartial members should be appointed to give us the assurance that this election will be ran with complete fairness and free
competition to all parties. Now, the burden is on Jesse Levine to prove that he is has the character to be our PRESIDENT. Failure to this will only confirm the suspicion this election is rigged to be a glorified coronation!

Sincerely,
Benjamin Hanson
Junior, University of Michigan

Comment [1]

Keep reading: next previous