You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 5:58 a.m.

Ann Arbor City Council delays vote on Justice Center artwork, citing concerns about public access

By Ryan J. Stanton


This $150,000 public art project in the lobby of the Ann Arbor Justice Center, titled "Radius," awaits approval from the City Council after being selected by the Public Art Commission.

Courtesy image

Are you willing to ditch your cell phone in a locker, empty out your pockets and go through a security checkpoint to get a good look at Ann Arbor's new public art installation?

City officials are starting to rethink that scenario following complaints that a $150,000 hanging sculpture proposed for the lobby of the Justice Center might not be so public.

The latest public art proposal went before the Ann Arbor City Council for a vote Monday night, but council members decided to postpone consideration until the city can fully explore relocating the security checkpoint that immediately greets visitors inside the lobby.


Another look at the $150,000 art project for the Justice Center lobby.

Courtesy image

"It would be so much nicer if we could open up that space to the public and I think we need to investigate that," Mayor John Hieftje said. "I know there was a debate about that back at the time that equipment was first placed where it is, but I would like to see it revisited."

The Justice Center is the newer building next to city hall at the corner of Fifth Avenue and Huron Street where the city's police and courts are housed.

City officials said they're still are looking into the costs of moving the security checkpoint further into the building past the main lobby area.

Aaron Seagraves, the city's public art administrator, and Craig Hupy, the city's interim public services administrator, both said there shouldn't be a problem with delaying consideration of the art installation for another month while that option is investigated. Hupy said there have been talks of having the installation completed by December.

The Ann Arbor Public Art Commission selected the piece titled "Radius" to liven up the lobby of the Justice Center back in January. The commission unanimously chose the artwork by Portland artist Ed Carpenter from a pool of three finalists' proposals.

Carpenter's proposed artwork measures 40 feet by 20 feet by 12 feet and is made of dichroic glass, aluminum and stainless steel, with integral LED spot and flood lighting.

"Like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond, 'Radius' emanates outward through the Justice Center lobby, a reminder of the interconnectedness of the public with the agencies serving them, and suggesting a network of cause and effect in the public realm," the proposal states.

Seagraves said one of the reasons Carpenter's proposal was chosen was because it uses more of the lobby space and it will be visible both indoors and outdoors, day and night.

Hieftje and other council members said the problem with public access inside the Justice Center lobby isn't the Art Commission's fault.

"The Art Commission was presented with a particular problem here because the artwork is tied to the building and they have a secure building," Hieftje said. "So where else in the building could you put this? There really isn't any other spot."

Added Hieftje: "It's really the nicest space that we have in a city building and the fact that it is closed unless you're going to court or to see the police is an issue beyond this piece of art."

Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, agreed with Hieftje and said the city should find a way to open the Justice Center lobby up to more people.

"It's a beautiful open space that should be something we use for meetings or marriages or parties or receptions or the things that civic space is used for," she said. "And unfortunately because of things that are there to protect our community, we have lost access to that space. I'm hopeful that we can figure out a way to have both — the security and the space."

The city pays for public art through the Percent For Art Program. Under an ordinance approved by the City Council in 2007, 1 percent of the budget for all city capital projects — up to a limit of $250,000 per project — is set aside in a special public art fund.

That equates to $334,660 in this year's budget

Council Member Jane Lumm, an Independent who represents the 2nd Ward, suggested the Art Commission should automatically consider public accessibility with future projects.


Stephen Kunselman

Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, tried to convince his peers on council to pass a resolution Monday night to require the city attorney to issue a written opinion on the legality of transferring street millage dollars to the city's public art fund.

Kunselman argued the ballot language for the street millage approved by Ann Arbor voters back in November did not include a clear statement that funds would be used for public art.

He said it's state law that voters must be given a clear statement of the purpose for a millage and the city attorney never has issued a formal opinion on whether it's been legal for the city to channel hundreds of thousands of dollars in dedicated street millage dollars to the public art fund over the last four years.

"It's a simple question and I think the public deserves that answer," he said.

Kunselman's resolution was voted down 7-3 with only Briere and Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, joining in support. Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, was absent.

A majority of council members argued the city attorney's office already had fully vetted the city's public art program and they were comfortable with it.

Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for Reach him at or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to's email newsletters.



Wed, Apr 4, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.

Beautiful piece! Outstanding! Why not just post a security guard as Art Museums do?


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.

Does Marcia Higgins ever appear for council meetings? Is she paid for her ongoing absences? Why does she continue to run for a seat when she obviously does not intend to represent her constituents? This is an ongoing scandal !


Wed, Apr 4, 2012 : 3:08 a.m.

I believe elections should be called if a member misses a pre-determined percentage of meetings during their term and that they should be ineligible to run for the next term. It's an absolute joke to have these invisible council members.

Alan Goldsmith

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.

You might ask Ms. Gunn where her Council Member is.

Yen Azzaro

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.

A win-win scenario would be to acquire art that appreciates, has significant historical content and could be built upon as a collection. If the need should arise, the art could be sold in the future. Art is about changing with the times but respecting precedence. That said, I feel bad for Ed Carpenter and all the bashing of his work. This kind of installation takes succinct planning and execution. People don't realize the labor that goes into this.


Wed, Apr 4, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.

People don't understand the endless hours of work and planning that goes into a piece like this. They also do not get the price for materials. I can't do a decent oil painting for under $3000.00.

Yen Azzaro

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 10:31 p.m.

Gretta, I agree about the low-traffic nature of this spot and the integral need for police and fire. I just wish there was a way for the "city" to appreciate beauty without a huge price tag.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 5:44 p.m.

I actually like the art work and I am involved in arts in this area. What I take issue with is the use of public monies for something like this in a relatively low foot traffic area at a time when we are understaffed in our police and fire departments and our kids are crammed into classrooms. It's deplorable.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 3:18 p.m. Why was this article about public art pulled off the front page after ~ 5 hours? It's only in the most commented section, not on the front page anymore ... or the second page. Was it time to "bury" it because of the comments against the mayor's "much needed" art?


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 7:55 p.m.

Thanks for putting it on the front page, I just noticed it was back. After you pulled it from your top story, it disappeared until now.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.

My initial reaction upon reading this article was, "...but it's not really public art then, is it?" At least one other person has made this point. Maybe we did approve the use of funds to be applied to a project such as this but it seems the city council and mayor are short-sighted. It occurred to me these folks want to turn Ann Arbor, MI into a little sweet European city. Many such places have lots of gorgeous art and much of it is public. The problem is placing nice art all over a city doesn't make a city nice. Ann Arbor is a good place but if we don't maintain core services, it'll be known as a little town that happens to have the University of MI in the middle of it. In order to maintain a thriving urban center and surrounding areas, there must be good public transportation, services, good schools, police and fire - and if we can't pay for those things right now, we really should not be putting any funds toward something like this extravagance.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.

No, no, no ..... the point is to turn Ann Arbor into: Boulder. Remember ? Apparently our Ann Arbor isn't good enough any more.

Ron Granger

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.

I've recently been in large cities where you can walk right up to the front desk of the police department in a downtown precinct and talk to the sergeant at the desk. And not behind a bunch of bullet proof glass - a real conversation. So what's the big need in ann arbor for all the security at the government fortress in A2?


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.

I see that blinking light thing everyday and it's a joke, a freaking JOKE. Whomever it was that approved that eye sore should be fired from their position. They should certainly not be allowed to purchase more artwork for that building regardless, the city has other priorities that should come first.

Ron Granger

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.

STOP squandering our art budget on that monument to ego and government excess! The more ornate you make your monument to government excess, the more offensive it is to the taxpayers who clearly said NO to building it. The taxpayers voted again and again against the construction of that building, and the council ignored them, and did an end-around to fund it. Now they continue to build it up into a palace, using public money. Here's a clue - NOBODY wants to visit your monument. They don't want to go to court. They don't want to visit the police. They don't want to appear at a hearing. They don't want to go there to pay taxes. We only visit those government buildings when we have no choice. We want to get out as quickly as possible. If you choose to work in government, don't expect regal accomodations on the public's money at your government office.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.

For those worried about crime in the city, this will provide the safest , most sterile environment in which to observe the city's continued misuse of taxpayer funds


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.

People might support the "public art bucket" if the art were incorporated into public works projects. For instance, the new stadium bridge project could greatly benefit from the inclusion of some eye candy. Many cities incorporate art into infrastructure projects and the result is to turn something utilitarian into something visitors remember. Nobody will remember the art installation from their trip to the hoosegow at 3am. I generally support jail time being used as an opportunity for reform, art appreciation included, but perpetrators will not be able to experience this work from their cells and the public mostly wants to never visit the "Justice Center." There's rarely justice to be had in such a place.

Peter Baker

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.

I'm all for public funds going to public art. But this lowest-common-denominator corporate-lobby art isn't doing anybody any good. Get somebody with some contemporary taste in charge of these things and I think there'd be a whole lot less controversy. Hey look, there is room for agreement from both sides of the argument!


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.

the problem is that "contemporary taste" is subjective, changing the members of the commission will not assuage people like me who love art, but would rather have better roads and more police. there should be no commission at all - when it's time to build public art, the art itself will inspire backers and fundraising, or a rich person can pick something to their taste and donate - but the commission and art-by-committee needs to be eliminated.

Leah Gunn

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.

The loss of lease money from the 15th District Court did not "blow a hole in the county's budget". The juvenile court was broght downtown, and so all the courts are consolidated in one place, thus creating greater efficiencies. Also, the Board of Commissioners did cut some money to its Coordinated Funding for grants to local non-profits to provide human services in December 2010. But, it restored that funding in January 2012, so it remains the same, $1,150,000 per year for two years. I certainly think it would be nice if some people would get the facts straight.

Alan Goldsmith

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 7:24 p.m.

Ms. Gunn, you forgot to mention your complete and unconditional support of this and other projects. Since you have the ear of the Mayor, maybe you can ask him why he is opposed to a written legal opinion from the City Attorney. Is he afraid of what it would say? Are you?


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 6:17 p.m.

Way to go Ms. Gunn! Great to hear that the Courts were consolidated in one place for consolidation efficiencies for staff and visitors and that human services grants were restored. Isn't it amazing that the great "Mayor" Ranzini was shot down once again on facts one more time ?

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.

@Leah Gunn: are you actually asserting that the rent saved by moving the juvenile courts was equal to or greater than the rent paid by the city of Ann Arbor for the city courts? What are the numbers please so we all can be educated? Do you have proof in the form of documents you can cite links to that proves your assertion that human services funds for non-profits will not be cut in the county's 2013 fiscal year from levels in place when the "Rog Mahal" was approved, in 2008? Animal control services were cut significantly but your post ignores that.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.

OMG. I just cannot believe that after all the disappointment expressed by the citizens of Ann Arbor over the last taxpayer funded ugly piece of metal by a German artist, it is happening AGAIN. $150,000.00! An not even created by an artist from Ann Arbor"?!? I WANT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS BACK & OUR PARKS MAINTAINED. Thank you, Mr. Kunselman, for attempting transparency for tax payers. It just won't happen with Hieftje, though. How many times will Ann Arbor residents put up with the Mayor "robbing Peter to pay Paul" before they elect someone, anyone else!

Dog Guy

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.

After the Radius Chandelier is installed and before it gets all dusty, I'll walk downtown and press my greasy nose against the windows to view it from several angles. Then I'll report here what all the emanations and recollections of interconnectedness with the agencies do for me. No need to rush judgment today.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.

two, not too. :(


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.

Please don't forget to bring your dog, too. Our pets would enjoy pressing their noses against the glass, and a lick or too, of course.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.

I think it is a shame that it is only access to a public art installation to finally bring some concern over accessibility to this space. What about accessibility to a front desk of a police station? This "Justice Center" is a farce, and quite frankly one of the most over-reactive and downright offensive arrangements I have ever seen. If I want to file or request a police report, ask an officer a question, report a concern, I have to be humiliated by subjecting myself to near airport-like security check, ditch my my cell phone, hope I'm not carrying a pocket knife, and if I have my laptop or something I can't fit in a little locker (or don't have change to get a locker), then I'm just out of luck? Really Ann Arbor? Really? You really feel that your police and detectives are such a target, so much at risk that you need to frisk every citizen and strip them of any phones or electronics? This is absolutely absurd, over the top paranoia, and downright insulting to the citizens of this town. If you need this level of security for entrance to courtrooms and such, then put the security check on that level, but requiring it to speak with a police officer is both absurd and offensive. Hell no I won't support a public art installation in a place like this. Not if it isn't freely accessible to the public.

Rose Garden

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.

Obviously, most of us don't need this kind of security applied to us. What about the few "crazies" out there? We will soon install security devices and personnel to public schools everywhere.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.

Oh. My. GOD! Don't these people have anything BETTER to do with their time?


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.

Thank you Mr Kunselman. Finally one council person speaking common sense. Mayor Hieftje is still more worried about building monuments to himself over the interests of the public trust given to him. Please get this on the ballot and stop our homegrown megalomaniac from wasting any more public dollars until then.

Chase Ingersoll

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.

You really have to hand it to the artsy fartsys in Ann Arbor. Taxpayers bought their law and order argument for new courthouse space that was artisan subterfuge for a public art gallery. I must hand it to them. Clap. Clap. V ery clever. I would not have thought they had it in them. If only we could turn their dark creative forces to a more worthy purpose to which we could all agree. Chase Ingersoll


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.

I am fed up with wasteful spending. $750,000 on a hunk of metal containing blinking blue lights (which by the way distracts drivers at night). Public art is nice, but there needs to be some sense of reality and and a good dose common sense when choosing worthwhile projects. And yes, the art needs to be accessible without restrictions.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.

Can we change the name of the building to "The Social Justice Center" so everybody knows what is going on inside. As far as the art goes, lets have some school kids put paint on their hands and cover the walls with it!

Red Floyd

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:38 p.m.

I made my own art piece this morning, also titled, "Radius." It created ripples, and everything. The city can better apportion their $150,000, and have MY art piece for free!


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:36 p.m.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. AAPS has been suffering horrible budget cuts, but a $150000 hanging pointless structure is just so cool.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.

This is just another embarrassing example of how little thought went into the decision making process. My forehead was just beginning to heal from all the slaps I applied to it during the crosswalk this. By the way readers, beware of comments made by folks who are just saying what they think you want to hear because they have plans to run for a local office in the future.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.

The insanity only gets worse.......Thank you Stephen Kunselman, Mike Anglin, and Marcia Higgins for some degree of reality. some personal thoughts * you people just know are figuring out the court is a secure area? * nobody (hyperbole) will go out of their way to look at that "art" anyway *you picked some art that requires an ongoing "carbon footprint" of electricity. How ungreen of you.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.

I never thought you were being snarky. It was a legitimate correction of my error. Its all good.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 3 p.m.

That's okay, Craig, I wasn't being snarky. I just noticed after reading several articles, with important issues on the table that she was absent. Way to represent my ward, Marcia.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.

your correct, my bad. I misread. Thanks for the correction. ;)


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.

I believe Marcia was absent ... again.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:26 p.m.

$150,000 hanging sculpture "measures 40 feet by 20 feet by 12 feet and is made of dichroic glass, aluminum and stainless steel, with integral LED spot and flood lighting." Has anyone seen the breakdown on the costs of material and construction? And what is the artist's fee? Am I the only one who believes that the artwork is overly expensive? If the City Art Commission figures that artwork must cost six figures to be worth anything then they have not learned from the $770,000 wretched rusty beam in front of the municipal building that never attracts a crowd. A citizen wishing to specifically examine the Dreiseitl travesty, or the Carpenter unimposing chandelier, must deal with poor parking and settings not conducive to sitting and contemplating. And the municipal building itself is distant from shops and restaurants that would make the trip more than a one stop event. The Ann Arbor Public Art Commission believes that expensive public art is necessary for the cultural enhancement of Ann Arbor but so far their efforts have been ill conceived by design and by location. The arrogant self-proclaimed "art experts" who so carelessly spend our tax dollars should allow citizens to decide on what is desirable for the community.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.

" And the municipal building itself is distant from shops and restaurants that would make the trip more than a one stop event" It's 3 blocks from the heart of downtown. C'mon. I'm not a fan of the art nor art spending, but it's bad enough by itself that no embellishment is needed. Let's keep it "veracious", eh?

Lets Get Real

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:19 p.m.

Ahhhh! The perpetual public art controversy. This is equally defined as "non-art" as the I-beam with the blue lights in front of this same building. (Actually, if turned upside-down, it could be dropped from the ceiling and used to trap accussed criminals attempting to escape the courtroom). Give me a break - art? Yes, a please, let's relocate the security in favor of the art. Scanners, electroic survelience, metal detectors, and a staging area don't need any special wiring, space or configuring. Let's move that. How many consultants will it take to screw-up that light bulb? And one last comment: Why is the artist AGAIN not local? What an insult to Ann Arbor and Michigan artists to be eliminated from the selection pool. At least this one is from the US, not another foreign country. Let's Get Real - this is all such a scam; evidence of the out-of-wack priorities this city has in budgeting and spending and such a colossal waste of scarce tax money. Please, please can we find a fiscal conservative who can manage the city's business affairs effectively. Don't get me started on the inability to get a bridge built - for years. Or, about the beautiful transit centers linking train stations and public city transportation in Kalamazoo and Holland, not to mention the new one being built in Grand Rapids. But here, the station with the highest ridership in SEMI, we've got an old, dinky, too small, unconnected to anything place to get the train - walking up hill or down hill to get there. Let's make sure we don't spend money on functionality - we'll just gloss everything over with art. What a farce. Superficial, external pretense. That's what is real.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:36 p.m.

I agree except that I believe that the present train station is sufficient for its purpose in this economic climate.

Elaine F. Owsley

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:17 p.m.

Yet another brooha about public art!! It would seem that the whole concept is more trouble than it's worth. If I lived in Ann Arbor and saw the way my tax money was used and abused, I would be hitting the streets with recall petitions. Public art can't change ugly buildings, no matter how much fuss is made.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.

Disgusting to be sure. This is not a museum. This piece of art isn't even a Michigan piece let along a city of Ann Arbor piece of art. This council and mayor are totally out of touch with reality. Thank you Stephen for trying to get at least some of the "unauthorized art funds" back where they are supposed to be -- street funds which were voted on by the citizens.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.

perhaps I can donate my "flat tire caused by pothole" to the new city art museum


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.

my only xmas wish this year is that the percent for art and a2 public art commission would both disappear. what a complete waste of money, time and energy. no, no, no, no, no. the more they do, the more they upset me - please go away, i'd rather have NO art than all this stupidity.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.

and by NO art, i meant nothing at all from the public art commission. i love art, i make art, i buy art, i support live performances - what i absolutely hate are roads that tear my car to pieces, while money is spent on "art" that is inaccessible or a complete fail. so nice that all this money is being spent around city hall, a building and location that would have been better served with NO art. Whatever your percentage of A2ites appreciate art, i'm sure they equally appreciate better road maintenance.

Rose Garden

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:20 p.m.

A great percentage of Ann Arborites have an appreciation for art. Thankfully, you are in a tiny minority.

bob elton

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.

I served on the original Commission on Art in Public Places, sometimes as chair. Written into our charter, and also our bylaws, was the definition of "public". Among other things, it had ot be accessible without regulation or restriction. If this artwork is installed, with the restrictions described, it can hardly be called "public art". So, this story leaves several unanswered questions. Such as, "What is the definition of public art in the current art commission's charter and/or bylaws? What is the definition of public art that allows funds from the public art fund to be used? Inquiring minds, at least this one, would like to know. Bob


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 11:43 a.m.

Calling that "art " is like calling prince john and his merry band competent...wrong on both counts.....


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.

I think the cheapest option and the best suited for the city is to get rid of the police department and make the building a display for public art. Problem solved.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 11:23 a.m.

How many people will want to find parking and go to the justice center just to see the artwork? It's not a tourist destination. Leave the security where it is. It's not worth any additional cost.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 11:19 a.m.

The story of the "Rog Mahal" is that of a $49 million plus boondoggle of the worst kind. After the fact, we learned that the "overcrowding" in the county court house was caused by a judge that the state judicial staffing review commission determined wasn't needed based on the drop over time in court case loads! Another impact was that when the county lost the lease income from the city for the court rooms the city was using, this blew a hole in the county's budget. The county then plugged it's budget deficit by, among other things, huge cuts to the social services budget, eliminating things like support for non-profits that serve the most vulnerable in our community and reducing funding for Huron Valley Humane Society. About all you can say in favor of it, was that the police were working in substandard quarters, however, if we had just done a rehab job there it would have only cost a fraction of the overall boondoggle we ended up paying for. With only 3 people on city council willing to vote against egregious waste of tax payer funds, I'm waiting for the next fiasco to come along. It's just a matter of time.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.

Please run for mayor.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 11:15 a.m.

Well, guess I won't be seeing the art will I? Using road millage for art is unspeakable! Hope all of you going to court enjoy the art. I won't that's for sure!

Alan Goldsmith

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 10:29 a.m.

"A majority of council members argued the city attorney's office already had fully vetted the city's public art program and they were comfortable with it." Why is the Mayor and others on counsel so afraid of a written, legal opinion? Why does the Mayor fear legal advice? Why is such a wimpy media watchdog on this and dozens of other issues?

Alan Goldsmith

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 10:26 a.m.

Added Hieftje: "It's really the nicest space that we have in a city building and the fact that it is closed unless you're going to court or to see the police is an issue beyond this piece of art." YOU appointed these people Mr. Mayor. Hand picked by you, and you don't appoint people who are opposed to your viewpoint--whether it's the DDA or the AAPAC. It's not AAPAC's fault? Then it must be YOU.

Alan Goldsmith

Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 10:22 a.m.

"Like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond, 'Radius' emanates outward through the Justice Center lobby, a reminder of the interconnectedness of the public with the agencies serving them, and suggesting a network of cause and effect in the public realm," If anyone needed any more evidence The Mayor and his hand picked buddies on the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission are out of touch with reality, look no further. Oh don't worry, we wouldn't have to empty our pockets to view this art. The Mayor and his friends are already doing a fine job of that with our tax dollars--and seem proud of the fact.


Tue, Apr 3, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.

We are powerless to change the minds of most city council, the mayor and his hand-picked team. The majority of Ann Arbor voters keep them in office. Thus, they have majority support.