What Are Plans Good For?

It seems at times that in Ann Arbor today we are living in a miasma of plans. So many plans being devised, discussed, revised, reviewed, and ultimately adopted.  Even for the really intensely interested (and I count myself among those so obsessed), it is often more convenient to put off reviewing the latest plan, since the details are dizzying and the implications can be dismaying.  But these plans, when in skillful hands, can shape our future. They can be used for bureaucratic justification, political manipulation, good public discourse, or simply go onto a shelf to be ignored.

I’m not a trained (urban) planner, but I’ve served on a county planning commission and advisory board, and have also edited three books on planning, including a methods text, so I’m very familiar with the process.  Ideally, a plan is the result of planning staff’s research and data collection at the direction of policymakers (aka elected or appointed officials).  The staff puts together a number of propositions and/or questions, and has a number of meetings with interested members of the public.  Traditionally in Ann Arbor, a public committee was appointed to work with the staff on the plan, and then took comments from other members of the public who came to their meetings.  Finally the staff compiles all this into a document which is then further reviewed and commented on, with formal public hearings, and the plan is then finally adopted by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission.

But what is the plan good for after all this?  That is a matter of serious controversy that affects some current projects.  As explained earlier, there are a couple of projects on the table that do not coincide with the Central Area Plan, a good plan that went through all the steps described relatively recently (roughly 15 years).  But the position of such plans in Michigan law has been ambiguous.  It has long been thought that master plans have no statutory authority in Michigan, that is, they do not comprise the rule of law.  Classically, a new master plan should then be followed by a new or revised comprehensive zoning ordinance that enacts all the policy statements in the plan into zoning code.  Unfortunately, this was not done for the Central Area Plan and it is not clear to me that any of the existing master plans in Ann Arbor (they have been done by sectors over many years) have been reflected in a zoning ordinance.  The plans are basically vision and policy statements, often with very specific land use recommendations, but it is not clear how defensible they are if challenged by someone who has a development proposal that is denied because it is inconsistent with the plan.

This question has been reviewed recently in an excellent analysis on the Ann Arbor Chronicle.  It quotes Tom Whitaker, the leader of the Germantown neighborhood group, as citing some recent case law that does indicate that master plans have statutory authority.  I hope that our city government gives these arguments a careful review.  Otherwise, the vision of how our city should be configured, developed through laborious process and massive investment by the public, will be ignored in favor of narrowly drawn zoning code.

Speaking of plans, I admired the finesse of the AATA board, who recently passed a support statement (only) for the Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update .  This “adoption in concept” basically says “okay, guys, some good ideas there” without committing the AATA to anything.   As reported by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the board thought the price tag for this ambitious plan was a bit high. The AATPU requires watching, as does the recent effort to consolidate the different land use plans.

UPDATE: Whitaker further elaborates on the  Germantown blog a case for the importance of master plans based on recent legislation.  As he notes, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act of 2008 has given these plans a much more substantive role.  As the legislation notes, “ In general, a planning commission has such lawful powers as may be necessary to enable it to promote local planning and otherwise carry out the purposes of this act.”  (Section 125.3831, item 4.)  Some of the legislation is possibly confusing since much of it is addressing the interaction between the county planning commission and municipalities.  (Municipalities include cities, villages, and townships.)  Our own Washtenaw County no longer has a planning commission (and many other counties don’t have a separate one).  The Planning Advisory Board completed the Comprehensive Plan for Washtenaw County while I was still serving on it (adopted 2004).  It is not primarily a land use plan, though it makes some broad recommendations.  An earlier joint planning act decreed that the county should review municipal land use plans to be sure that they conform to the general county plan and are not in conflict with the plans of adjacent municipalities.  These reviews were advisory in nature, making only comments and recommendations, not vetoing plans.  This new act appears to strengthen that interaction.

The language of the 2008 act does make it clear that master planning is important, and that planning commissions should take a broad overview of  land use in making decisions.  I hope that the planning commission chair, Bonnie Bona, and the city council representative, Anthony Derezinski, will take the time before the next meeting to review the updated legal status of these plans before refusing to take them into account in site plan decisions.

Privatizing the University of Michigan

Time magazine this week published an article speculating that the University of Michigan might become a private institution.  I had heard some chat about this earlier, but didn’t take it seriously.  But if it is in Time…  My first thought was to discount it.  My second was, “OH, WOW!”.

Ann Arbor’s relationship with UM has been like that of a person who wears a really big diamond pendant around the neck.  On the one hand, it glitters and is highly valued; on the other hand, it can cause headaches and neck strain. Because the UM managed to get itself written into the Michigan Constitution as a sovereign institution not liable to local regulation of any kind, Ann Arbor residents have been living with the proverbial 800-lb gorilla for some time. (I recall reading an early history of the town where some rowdy students set the boardwalk on fire, back before sidewalks came along.)

It seems that ever since I moved here, there have been numerous task forces convened by the mayor or someone else, to “communicate” on town-gown issues. But UM doesn’t have to consult with the city about anything, and especially not about land use.  Since they have been gobbling up increasingly large bites of the real estate in the city, this has some profound effects. The difficulty the city and its residents have in working with UM has been most recently highlighted by the Wall Street development issues. They have essentially zeroed out what was once part of the Lowertown neighborhood, and surrounding residents have nothing to say about it.

The UM has continually been acquiring property that over time has amounted to a significant fraction of the tax base of the city.  Recall that we (Ann Arbor) are essentially locked out of further expansion.  Under some agreements with surrounding townships, the city has been annexing township islands and filling in its borders within what is essentially the freeway ring.  But that’s it – we won’t be able to expand further, so that once we finish annexing the last drops of land within the fixed border, each bite the UM takes will be out of a shrinking pie.  I haven’t seen recent estimates, but some years ago it was said that UM occupies 40% of the land mass within the City of Ann Arbor.

Of course, that has major tax implications. According to data presented by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the city’s property tax revenues have been about $50 million a year (and falling).  Imagine if we could add a 40% increment onto that – about $33 million if proportional, but oh my, those expensive buildings, and then there is the personal property!  (Note that Ann Arbor’s so-called “personal property tax” is actually equipment used for business purposes.)

But since the UM doesn’t pay taxes on its property, Ann Arbor has had a “structural deficit” for many years, resulting in budget shortfalls. Two past studies have been done on the feasibility of a city income tax (available by links from this Chronicle story), one as the result of a committee on which I served in the mid-90s.  I remain convinced that an income tax could be a fair way for the city to recoup some of the dollars represented by that tremendous corporate campus that is the UM. The City’s newest budget priorities include examining the possibility of an income tax once again.

If UM did become a private institution, it would doubtless seek to have some part of its taxes forgiven as a non-profit.  Perhaps it would even attempt to become private and somehow retain its constitutional immunity.  Ann Arbor and its representatives should fight that tooth and nail. We would want them to have to obey local laws like anyone else.  And please, don’t tell me the UM could just pick up and leave.  Their physical investments here are too great.

Part of becoming a private institution might mean a greater economic homogeneity among the students.  But in a world where new student housing is commanding $1000/month or more for a single bedroom, I wonder how many lower-income Michigan residents are being served now.  According to the Time article, only 12% of students are eligible for Pell Grants, while other states’ universities have at least 30% of their students eligible.

The motivation for privatizing would partly be prestige, to get away from being “merely” a state university (so says the article).  Clearly if UM does want to go this route, it can’t be called the “University of Michigan” any more.  It needs to do what any really competitive enterprise does, and “rebrand”.  I’ve done some advance work for them, and I’m willing to donate my creative work to the UM gratis.  The new brand is…Unim!  Pronounced “you-nim”.  As in, “yeah, I’m at Unim”.

Enjoy.

Knights’ ‘Hood

For a truly townie experience, do what we did last weekend and go to Knight’s.  It has been an occasional habit to stop by on Saturday for lunch and have one of their excellent hamburgers, often preceded by a cup of soup made on the premises.  My eye caught a modest notice on the door that this weekend (Sunday, April 26), there would be a 25th anniversary celebration of the restaurant from 2:00 to 5:00 with “complimentary hors d’oeuvres and cash bar”.

That was all the notice that anyone is likely to get.  Unless, maybe, you were already signed up as a “friend” on their website.  Even the website doesn’t have information about the open house and I’m pretty sure Knight’s has never, never advertised.  In fact, they don’t even have a sign.  If you don’t realize that the building on Dexter Avenue across from Veteran’s Park is a restaurant and not a private club, you might never enter. The only information you are given is the large image of a chess knight outside.

There really are Knights.  It is a family business and the patriarch, Ray Knight, is supposed to be at the festivities on Sunday.  His son Don Knight runs the restaurant now, while his brother Bob runs the market.

Oh, yes, the market.  It is another mysterious building with only chess knights to tell its story. Whenever I stop by for some of their excellent ground beef, I’m likely to run into someone I know (it is at Spring and Miller,  in my ‘hood).  I’m told that the business started with the market, where real attention was paid to the meat.  Then in 1984 the restaurant was opened.  They are still about the meat.  I interviewed Mr. Knight for an article I wrote on local food and learned that he brings in sides of prime beef that are cut on the spot.  The meat that doesn’t go to the restaurant is meticulously tailored into familiar cuts and laid out in an open cooler near the front of the store.  They also buy Amish chickens from a Michigan producer and cut them up themselves.  (If you ask nicely, they’ll save you the backs for making soup.)  You won’t find many inexpensive cuts there, but the few times we bought steak for special occasions, it justified the hype.  They also have bulk bacon and sausages in the cooler. You can request special cuts if you give them a couple of days.  Otherwise, it is much like a well-stocked convenience store except that they carry a few local items like Ann Arbor Tortilla Factory chips, Angelo’s raisin bread, and Knight’s own brownies.

As for the restaurant (which may be called Knight’s Steakhouse or Knight’s Bar/Restaurant, depending on where you look), it is solid good food, confidently prepared and deftly served.  The prices are reasonable for the quality and the drinks are a good value.  Going there for dinner is like shrugging into a comfortable garment, if you are able to avoid the smoke successfully.  (There are non-smoking areas and some nights they limit smoking to the bar.) Though beef is the main attraction, they usually have some very decent fish dishes, and those are usually what I select.  I’ve now discovered that the specials are posted on the website.  This caused me some grief when I read that they had the pork schnitzel with pierogi and red cabbage the other night.  Maybe next time.

By the way, don’t plan to go on Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, or any really special day.  Even weekday evenings there is usually a wait.  And be prepared to run into someone you know.  If you’ve lived here long enough.

UPDATE: According to the May 2009 Ann Arbor Observer, the market is now being managed by Sherry Knight Bedolla.  She is introducing some modernizations including more prepared food.  I’ve been noticing more fresh produce and other touches, but apparently more is underway.  The meat is staying.

UPDATE: We went because the appetizer special was the pork schnitzel plus the pierogies.  Wish they’ d make this a dinner special, with a red cabbage side.

UPDATE:   October 2011: I doubt that the Knights were reading this blog post, but they did put the pork schnitzel with pierogies and red cabbage on the regular menu!   (To see the Knight’s night’s specials, see their online menu , usually posted mid-afternoon.)  If you want a classic steak dinner or the other solid standards on their menu, you are in good hands.  Often my husband simply orders one of their hamburgers for dinner, with a side of salad and/or a cup of soup.  (Did I mention that their soups are superlative?)  They clearly have a chef working for them.  In addition to the rotating offers on the specials of the classic pot roast, roast chicken, turkey dinner, and meatloaf, there are often innovative or even daring specials, often with an Italian or Cajun twist.  Tonight the menu also includes the classics Shrimp Scampi and Trout Amandine.

Since the state smoking ban, Knight’s is crowded almost every night (Mon-Sat) that they are open.  A hint:  you can call ahead to put your name on the waiting list.  No, you’ll have to look up the number yourself.
Meanwhile, the market has also been undergoing upgrades, including a new automatic front door and a new meat cooler with expanded choices.  There are more and more local products and special fresh baked goods.

The thrilling news is that they are attempting to put a bakery in next to the market.  This is requiring a rezoning. From ETrakit:

“A proposal to rezone 306, 308, 310 Spring from R2A (Two-Family Dwelling District) to C1 (Local Business) to allow the residential dwelling at 306 Spring to be converted to a bakery use. No new floor area or additional parking is proposed.”

Please, Planning Commissioners, grant us this boon.  Think of how much those of us in the ‘hood will treasure having a Knight’s bakery within walking distance.  Please?

UPDATE January 2012

If you call ahead for a booth, it can be a very cozy place on a winter’s night.

UPDATE: Knight’s Market has finished a renovation.  Here is the new front door:

They have a new meat cooler, too.

UPDATE September 2012

As reported here by AnnArbor.com, Knight’s has received final approval of zoning changes that will permit renovation of the market and a new bakery and food prep area in the existing house on the property.  Great things anticipated.

UPDATE  February 2013

AnnArbor.com reports that Ray Knight, the founder of Knight’s and of a successful clan of Knights, died on February 16.  The article has a nice picture of the five Knight siblings who now run the operation, plus some good interviews with them.

 

Transition Comes to Ann Arbor

Tonight I attended the organizational meeting of Transition Ann Arbor.  Actually, a group has been working on it for some time.  This “initiating team” (consisting of Nate Ayers, Lisa Dugdale, Jeannine LaPrad, Jeanne Mackey, and Jeannine Palms) was part of a training conducted earlier at Rudolf Steiner School, and has been tasked to take on the first step – called the “first ingredient” – at bringing Ann Arbor into the ranks of Transition Towns.  About 20 of us heard an introductory talk and exchanged thoughts about current and future efforts.  If we succeed in meeting certain criteria, then our city can be inducted into a world-wide network of these communities.

Transition is a global phenomenon initiated by Rob Hopkins of the UK.  A video of him and some other explanations are visible on the Transition US website.  Basically, Transition sees three crises building that will affect our lives forever: global warming, energy depletion, and economic collapse.  These will lead to what is called The Long Emergency, a time when life may change drastically.  Transition’s idea is that it is better to prepare for these abrupt changes by becoming more resilient, more interdependent, and more localized.  Although it is closely allied to a number of other dystopian concepts (I’m a long-time peak oiler myself), it is a joyful movement calling on using our “collective genius” as a community to resolve future problems in the supply of food, energy, transportation, health care, and housing.

There were some of the “usual suspects” at the meeting, but not many I recognized.  (I loved Steve Bean’s Think Local First T-shirt, that proclaimed, “Keep Ann Arbor Funky”.)  The group will be focusing in early days on getting the word out with films and talks, including some book club meetings at Crazy Wisdom Bookstore in June.  (Events are listed on the TAA website.)  Another focus is “reskilling”, relearning old survival skills like preserving food and repairing clothing.  They’ll be getting people educated with such tools as the Transition Handbook (a wiki version is available free online).

As a very long-time environmentalist (I was teaching biology in a junior college on the first Earth Day, and decked the bulletin board with special tidbits for it), I recognized a lot of familiar themes and questions.  For example, there is talk of “indicators”, a familiar usage from the sustainability canon. But what is so intriguing about Transition is that it focuses on the social and communal aspects of how we might live in reduced circumstances. It is truly a social phenomenon, and one worth watching, whether you are convinced that it will be needed or not.

UPDATE: There is a new “introductory meeting” scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 7-8:30 (the meeting I attended ended promptly on time).  It is at

TAPPAN MEDIA CENTER
Tappan Middle School
2251 E. STADIUM BLVD
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104

The organizers ask for people to rideshare or use alternative transportation because of another event at Tappan that night.

Second Update: The Ann Arbor Chronicle recently published an account of a reskilling workshop put on by TAA.

A Tale of Two Neighborhoods

Ann Arbor’s oldest neighborhood and its newest are both fighting incursions at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting.  Actually, both neighborhoods have been around for a long time, but the North Central Property Owners’ Association was founded before any other neighborhood organizations, and the Germantown Neighborhood Association is surely the newest. The NCPOA was founded in 1958 by largely black “property owners” (a point of pride) to combat urban renewal in the then-majority black neighborhood.  The Germantown Neighborhood Association was formalized  in January of this year to combat an absentee landlord’s plan to raze many of the significant buildings in the area to build high-density rental properties.

What these two neighborhoods have in common is that they are both in the area covered by the Central Area Plan (1992).  As the Plan says,

The Central Area plan area encompasses approximately 1,995 acres, or 3.12 square miles, and contains the downtown commercial districts; the University of Michigan Central, Medical and south Campuses; and the surrounding established residential neighborhoods.  The area generally represents the boundaries of the City at the turn of the century. (1900) The Central Area is bounded by Seventh Street on the west, Stadium Boulevard on the south, Ferdon on the east, and Summit Street and the Huron River on the north.

The Central Area contains the downtown, of course, but the areas outside the downtown core are to receive careful treatment. According to the Central Area Plan, an important objective is “To protect, preserve and enhance the character, scale and integrity of existing housing in established residential areas, recognizing the distinctive qualities of each neighborhood.” This was recognized in the Calthorpe report (February 2006), which called for a plan that “Respects the different adjacent single family neighborhoods by decreasing new development intensity away from the Downtown Core”.

Unfortunately, the proximity to the downtown (within walking distance!) has made these neighborhoods an attractive target for more intensive development, upsetting the very intent of the Central Area Plan.

City Place, 407-437 South Fifth Avenue (see p. 31 in the packet), is a proposed apartment building with 144 bedrooms in 24 units.  It would require the demolishment of 7 historic buildings (see photos here).   The first two versions of this project were as a PUD (planned unit development). A PUD is a negotiated rezoning for which the developer (Alex de Parry) must show a real public benefit.  Twice, this project failed the test, most recently in January.  Now he has brought back a project in “by right” zoning, meaning that he proposes a site plan for a project that fits within the current R4C zoning.  But aside from general ugliness, its poor fit with the other residences in the neighborhood, and its lack of concurrence with the Central Area Plan, its configuration as a student-only residence (6 bedrooms per unit) means that it will forever be limited to that type of use, even if it becomes inappropriate in future years.  Tom Whittaker of the Germantown group makes a good argument for the need to revise the R4C zoning to prevent this type of use being applied in such areas.  But meanwhile the planning staff, perhaps through pure exhaustion, have recommended approval, despite their many negative comments about it.

The Near North PUD, 626-724 North Main Street (see p. 51 in the packet) would  require demolishment of 5 buildings, evidently none of them designated as historic, but of an age and style consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.  John Hilton of NCPOA has a moving account of how the North Central neighborhood has evolved into a  family community over the last decades that has accepted new development in a true inclusionary spirit.  But the “supersized” Near North project would overshadow this neighborhood and destroy much housing that is already affordable in the name of building other affordable housing.  I am sorry to see that Avalon Housing is lending its name and high moral standing in our town to this project.  In spite of the political assist, the planning staff has recommended against the PUD for a number of flaws, including the inconsistency with the Central Area Plan.

These two proposed developments are emblematic of an ongoing struggle for the nature of the city’s near-downtown neighborhoods.  The Central Area Plan resulted from a consensus that these neighborhoods should remain integral, while diverse.  They often contain some of the most interesting and valuable historic structures (being part of the old city), are within walking distance of downtown and many amenities, and by their very diversity both in architecture and population represent a source of vitality for this town.  Because of these characteristics, they are revitalizing and gaining residents who will invest in their success as living communities. With our new focus on alternative transportation, these relatively dense and compact neighborhoods are a real asset to the future of our city.  It would be tragic if we allowed the desire for development dollars to abrogate the Central Area Plan by driving new construction that is out of scale and character with them.

Update: The Planning Commission adjourned without taking action on the Near North project.  The next discussion is on May 5.  The City Place project was approved by a 6-3 vote after chair Bonnie Bona declared that Master Plan considerations could not be taken into account.  Bona did not offer any legal justification for this opinion, but offered it in an authoritative fashion as the Chair of the body.

Second Update: See a good discussion in the Ann Arbor Chronicle of the question regarding validity of master plans in making site plan decisions.

Third Update: The Germantown Neighborhood Association blog has been taken down on a temporary basis.

A Place for Neighborhoods

“Neighborhood” is a term that carries strong emotional weight but little precision.  What is a neighborhood?  A block where my friends and I live? An area of similar architecture or ethnic makeup?  Or is a neighborhood simply circumscribed by obvious geographical borders?   Probably the answer lies in a muddle of those and many other concepts. According to the Ann Arbor Planning & Development Department, “City Council, by resolution, is committed to protect older or established neighborhoods”.  Our master plan process has traditionally recognized the importance of neighborhoods to the character and integrity of the city.  And after all, the neighborhood is the immediate unit of place beyond one’s own home.

But neighborhoods have been under attack lately, both by adverse development proposals and by critics.    Ann Arbor is Overrated, a blog that was discontinued when the blogger graduated and moved on, criticized my campaign call for “quality of life” as an antidensity “dogwhistle” (scroll down to March 17, 2008).  I’m including it here as an example of the disdain shown for neighborhood advocates in certain quarters, some of which seems to be a “have vs. have-not” resentment. Also, neighborhoods can sometimes justifiably be criticized for the attempted exclusion of different types or classes of people. (I don’t personally believe that this is a factor in most recent development disputes in Ann Arbor.) There are other critics who advance principled reasons for a change in the makeup of the city.   I’ll review the “density” argument and the “creative class/talent” argument at some other time. Meanwhile, there are major changes to the zoning ordinance on the agenda.

This is not a new issue.  As I described in an earlier article, there is a long history of neighborhood action to save a piece of greenspace, or to save an historic building, or to prevent adverse development within a neighborhood.  Such civic action has helped to make Ann Arbor the vital city it is.

Urban planning goes through fashions for the replacement of what is current with something entirely different.  One of the reasons Ann Arbor is such a great place is that it resisted this kind of change back in the 1950s and 60s when urban renewal was all the rage.  Cities tore down whole blocks and destroyed neighborhoods as well as historic buildings.  Madison, Wisconsin, where I went to graduate school, tore down its equivalent of the Old West Side. (It was a neighborhood of modest houses populated mostly by people of Italian descent.)  When I lived there, there was a huge vacant lot next to a single street of neat little wooden houses.  Now it is a public housing development made out of concrete.  Our city resisted this change and now we have not only the Old West Side, but many other core neighborhoods with historic buildings and affordable housing, as well as our beautiful historic downtown.  While urban renewal blasted the essential heart of some cities and scattered their residents,  we had a strong and successful campaign that ultimately saved the predominantly black neighborhood (North Central) and old industrial/commercial area (now Kerrytown) north of Huron Street.  So what has made Ann Arbor so attractive both as a city to live in and one that draws quality-of-life oriented “talent” and visitors is what didn’t happen because of push-back against the urban fashion of the day.

During the 2005 “Calthorpe process”, the city sponsored some excellent speakers.  One of them was “Rick” (Roderick) Hills, a lawyer who has, among other things, examined the history and purpose of zoning.  He has since written a number of scholarly papers, including this one, that examine public choice theory, namely, the ability of the public to influence their governments, especially given the possibility of “predatory majorities”. His lecture on zoning showed that its historic importance was in creating some security for neighborhoods so that people living within them could protect their investment, both economic and emotional.  As he said, “They do like to know that they aren’t getting shafted.”  As he explains at some length in his paper, there is a traditional exit-based theory of choice, in that if you don’t like it here, why, you can leave.  But the alternative to that is “voice”, namely the possibility of influencing the course of government decisions.  People living in neighborhoods need a voice, because the alternative of simply exiting is too burdensome, given their investment.

Pat Ryan is a long-time neighborhood activist whom I interviewed for my 2005 article, and who has given me the permission to use her comments here.  She argues that, aside from the right to protect one’s home and investment, neighborhoods deserve consideration because the people who are committed to a place are those who invest personally in it.  It is “neighborhood types” who volunteer, form associations, act as stewards in parks, donate to local causes, create “senseless acts of beauty” (check out FestiFools), and generally make up all the strands of the social network that is a true community.

There are over 90 neighborhood associations in Ann Arbor, some of them overlapping in geographical coverage.  Recently a new group, the Alliance of Neighborhoods was formed in order to ensure that neighborhood interests are considered by those who are making decisions for our city. As they say, ” We believe that urban planning should include quality of life considerations.”.  I think so, too.  And that’s not a dog-whistle.  It’s the outcome that I believe we deserve from our local government.

Why Should We Care About Tios?

I’ll be following a long-term custom in our family tonight.  Whenever both of us have late-night commitments, I usually stop by Tios on the way home and pick up an order of chicken enchiladas and a couple of beef tacos for dinner.   It may not be the most authentic Mexican food we’ve ever had, but it is generous and satisfying— real comfort food—and they are open really late.

But this comfortable routine is coming to an end soon.  On July 7, 2008, the City Council voted to buy the building in which Tios is housed.  The item was not on the published agenda and was added at the last minute. The purchase price, which was $615,000 including the closing costs, was paid for from the General Fund Balance.    That is the same fund balance which staff estimates will show a 10% operating deficit in the next couple of years.  Because it was a capital acquisition, the item required an 8-vote margin, which is exactly what it had.  Councilmembers Anglin, Briere and Suarez voted against it.  Though not stated in the resolution, the presumed purpose was to clear the way for some use relating to the new city hall expansion.

This was quite a shock to Tios’ owners, Tim and Harriet Seaver, who spoke bitterly to Council about their business and the way the City had essentially yanked it out from under them.  They also mounted a campaign, still underway, to raise money necessary for the move.  (A worker at the restaurant said today that contributions can be mailed to Tios at 333 E. Huron,Ann Arbor 48104.)

So why should we care?  Restaurants come and go.  The Old German, Bill Knapps, and Steve’s Lunch are all history, and even the recently opened Mexican-themed chain Salsarita’s in the McKinley complex on Liberty has closed.

We should care partly because of the roughness with which a long-time business was handled by our city government.  But also because Tios has been an institution, a part of the fabric of our city.  Its particular distinctiveness (if slightly funky in nature) has added to the richness of the Ann Arbor experience in a way that new chain restaurants will never do.  As expressed by Gordon Bigelow in an Other Voices recently,  it is a form of cultural sterilization.  Without the local character that unique operations like Tios provide, downtown Ann Arbor could become interchangeable with any affluent city.  Let’s hope that the City will leave Le Dog alone!

But the story is apparently taking a not-too-bad turn.  I was told today that Tios is relocating to the Liberty Street location formerly occupied by Salsarita’s.  That will presumably come with Salsarita’s liquor license.  So the business will survive (if they can raise enough money to make the move) and maybe even expand its menu.  But it will certainly be different, and the parking is likely to be a problem (no more stopping by after meetings to pick up enchiladas).    I’ll miss that magnificent mural.

UPDATE: According to the Ann Arbor News,  City Council waived some costs to Tios in its final months.  The News also reported that the building will likely be demolished.  It still looks as though the mural is toast. And Tios will have to apply for that liquor license – Council withdrew it from the old Salsarita’s space.

SECOND UPDATE: Alas, the old building and the mural are now history.

THIRD UPDATE:  The Newshawks midsummer news report also has a picture of the old restaurant.  Alas, the reported takeover by Tios of the Ann Arbor News building did not pan out.

FOURTH UPDATE: According to a story on AnnArbor.com (March 14, 2010), business is doing well in the new location. Tios secured the liquor license, which means bigger tabs.  They also secured favorable terms for the remainder of Salsarita’s lease.  But their carryout business is down, including mine.  Hard to stop by a restaurant on busy Liberty.  It sounds as though it is a different restaurant in many ways, more upscale and with an expanded menu.

All the News Not in Print

The news about the News came out a few weeks ago – the Ann Arbor News is folding, to be reborn as an entirely new entity, AnnArbor.com.  As stunning as this was, it is not so unusual around the country.  The New York Times recently said that in many communities where local papers are failing, online “hyperlocal” sites are springing up to help fill the gap.  They collect links from local blogs and other online material.  Of the ones mentioned, the only one covering Ann Arbor is apparently Outside In.   Of course, we are fortunate to have an online news venue that includes original reporting,  the Ann Arbor Chronicle.  Outside In’s blog gave the Chronicle top ranking as early as last October (though we know the Chronicle is not a blog).

We’ll be listing all the blogs and news outlets that seem to us to bring real news and insight about Ann Arbor in our blogroll.  If you want to nominate one that isn’t listed, please do.  Note that Current’s electronic version seems to have lost its hosting for the time being, though it is still listed on ArborWiki.

Thinking Local

There is an old expression—”that hits me where I live”.  While we all consider ourselves to be part of a national, even global, society, ultimately it is what happens right around us that has the most impact on daily life.  That locality is where social networks, business relationships, and the physical reality of day-to-day existence occur.

The city of Ann Arbor and its immediate neighbors are the local community that this blog is about.   It is also about how our town will face the challenges in our future.

Here is a principle of localization that is fundamental to this discussion:

“…key decisions should reside with those who demonstrate a connection and commitment to place, not with those who are placeless.  This “residential” principle says that people who live and work in a community are more likely to represent community values, be dependent on the coherence and durability of the community in place, and know that place.”  Thomas Princen, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, February 10, 2009 (lecture presented March 25, 2009).