Ann Arbor chamber takes pro-development stance on Library Lot
The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce has stayed out of the debate - until now - on what should happen with the so-called Library Lot along South Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor.
This hotel and conference center proposal by New York-based Valiant Partners LLC has been the front-runner in city discussions.
The community has debated whether the area atop an underground parking structure being developed on the site should remain preserved as an open public park space. At the other end of the spectrum, the city is giving consideration to two competing proposals, both calling for building a hotel to go along with a publicly financed conference center.
The chamber now says it favors vertical development, though its endorsement doesn't go as far to state a preference for a hotel and conference center - or any specific project.
"The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce supports creating a denser, more vibrant downtown urban core," it states. "The Library Lot presents our community with a tremendous economic development opportunity, which should support the area’s economy as a whole. By having more business and residential activity in the downtown area, the business environment will grow, jobs will be created, and the Ann Arbor area’s reputation as a destination will be enhanced."
The chamber also points out a new development affords the city an opportunity to grow its tax base to fund essential services.
"If public investment is proposed, however, it must be based on an objective analysis of the market for and economic feasibility of the development in question," the statement reads. "Single sites in the downtown area should not be developed in isolation. Library Lot development should be comprehensively planned and coordinated with other downtown area properties, including the former YMCA site, as well as presumed makeovers to the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown branch and the Ann Arbor Transit Authority’s Blake Transit Center."
Due to problems with past requests for proposals issued by the city, the chamber is urging the city to explore new methods in the future, such as selling city-owned properties to private developers who will then assume associated risk and liabilities.
"This will also permit the market to dictate ultimate land use within the confines of current zoning," the chamber states in its letter. "The hidden costs of the city-owned former YMCA site and failed William Street Station development (and pending lawsuit) are telling in this regard. By one conservative estimate, the total cost to Ann Arbor taxpayers amounts to approximately $6 million (which includes the site’s purchase price, the former YMCA’s demolition costs, surface parking lot site preparation costs, combined debt service payments, and foregone property tax revenue assumed for a vacant downtown area parcel)."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
thurber
Sat, Apr 3, 2010 : 11:01 a.m.
The chamber does not claim to represent Ann Arbor residents or their interests. The chamber represents its member's commercial interests. The chamber's directors set policy; very few directors if any live in Ann Arbor. They don't pay taxes here, they don't get stuck paying for the city's boondoggles and mismanagement. If they can get the city to gamble with our money on a conference center that will make their members money, you do the math.
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:56 p.m.
Mr. Annis' comments are useful in that they highlight the lack of data to substantiate the continuing claim that a conference center would bring an economic benefit to the city. In a blog post that originated with a citizens' group (Public Land, Public Process), we present information to show that any hotel will simply depress the already poor local hotel economy; current occupancy and room rates are already too low for good business returns. Further, in another post, we recount the experience in other cities where a public subsidy was used to build a conference center; most of these have been money-losers.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.
"How can we have faith in a major downtown construction project and potential conference center when we can't even get a bridge repaired?" Same old point over and over. City waited to try to get the feds to pay for it, that failed, and now they're gunna reapir it. Big woop.
cfsunlet
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.
Hello--Has anyone noticed a bridge missing over State St.--one of the main throughways into Ann Arbor? How can we have faith in a major downtown construction project and potential conference center when we can't even get a bridge repaired? The longer they forget about the bridge the less faith I have that they can get anything done.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:08 p.m.
I don't know what the solution is, but I'd rather have this place sold and on the tax rolls than having a park. I don't see the need for a park as people are stating it.
larry
Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 3:47 p.m.
Of corse the Chamber of Commerce would lean toward -- commerce. As tax payers and citizens, however, we would like a public square in the heart of Downtown to make it more vibrant -- something sorely lacking in many US cities.
sh1
Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.
Isn't this where policy goes wrong in our country? #1. Make a decision and stick to it. #2. Start to gather information/research. Be sure to ignore all facts that don't support decision.
oakapple
Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.
The first question is whether the city will benefit more from development or additional open space. I live in the city but already avoid going downtown to shop or to dine because of the congestion. Before I retired I owned a business here which employed 70 professionals. I didn't site it downtown because of its high real estate costs and the inconvenience to my staff to have to drive through all that traffic and have all those parking problems. In my opinion, increasing density downtown will only make these matters worse. The good news is that we'll already get more parking with the underground lot. I favor more open space to make downtown more inviting. Downtown stores and restaurants will benefit, and office workers can enjoy the open space during lunch. The second question is who should pay for whatever is done. This is a no-brainer. No government money (city, state, or national) should be used to pay for or even guarantee bonds for private development. If we go with a park or plaza, can the city afford to do it? Within reason, yes. But with the present city budget crisis I'm also concerned that we get our priorities for city spending right.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 12:19 a.m.
ummmm, it would seem that an occupancy check over the last 5-6-7 years would be in order here... just to see how much the internet (go to meeting) is diminishing travel and the needs for hotel rooms. eh, what?
thurber
Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 11:03 p.m.
As well as those who touching it.
Kyle Mazurek
Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 10:22 p.m.
Mr. Annis, in regard to the Chambers perceived support for a particular development concept, I would direct you to the first 2 sentences of the final paragraph of the statement that I, myself, drafted (and which Mr. Stanton so kindly linked to this story), which explicitly state as follows: the Ann Arbor Chamber supports development of the Library Lot. Before endorsing a particular concept, however, we require additional information.
thurber
Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 6:45 p.m.
This is so tainted.
Ted Annis
Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 6:42 p.m.
Folks, I dug into the convention center economics a little bit. In particular, I looked for documentation that would support or repudiate the assertion by Stephen Rapundalo, Jessie Bernstein, and others that a convention center would be an economic engine. I requested and received meetings with the following: 1.The Visitors and Convention Center Bureau 2.The DDA 3.Jessie Bernstein (Chamber) 4.One AA Councilperson Although several of these entities are in support of the grander convention center proposals, they have no data or supporting studies. (The Visitors and Convention Center Bureau had studies that are now way out-of-date.) From what I can tell, the Chamber's support is based upon the word-of-mouth, likely faulty premise that a big convention center would be an economic engine and add to the tax base. They need to support this assertion with data and studies; I wish they could, but doubt that they can. One hopes that their decision-making process on this matter was done more carefully than the decisions that created their current financial crisis. One comment made to me was the City needs to be entrepreneurial in this regard. My reply to this is "bunk, not with my tax dollars." I want the City to be careful and methodical, adverse to high risk, and concentrating on roads, sewer, water, police, fire, etc. The several annual conventions (plumbers, electricians) that are held at the UoM and WCC, which benefit those institutions and the surrounding motels and restaurants, are held up as evidence of the need and viability. My reply to this is "bunk, you have it backwards." (I do note that the Chamber's prepared statement does not state a preference as to which proposal they prefer. Evidently, their preference for "vertical development" was made orally to reporter Ryan Stanton.) Ted Annis (Entrepreneur, retired)
voiceofreason
Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 5:52 p.m.
This is preposterous! I want a park! We need a park in Ann Arbor, and it must be in this location!