City of Ann Arbor would be wrong to give use of parkland to University of Michigan for transportation center
(The headline of this letter to the editor has been revised to better reflect that under the proposal being discussed, the city of Ann Arbor would not give ownership of the parkland to the University of Michigan.)
Less than two years ago, the voters of Ann Arbor overwhelmingly supported a ballot proposal requiring a public vote to approve the sale of parkland.
Presently, our city leaders are promoting "an agreement" that is quietly and rapidly progressing through the city's own approval process in an effort to circumvent the clear will of the citizens of our community to protect our parks. This agreement gives Fuller Park land to the University of Michigan, for a period of 75 years, for the erection of a parking deck dedicated for use by University Hospital.
This building is being promoted by the city to its citizens as a "Transportation Center." The university describes it to its own community as "a new parking deck near Fuller Road that could include the addition of about 1,000 staff parking places".
This "gift" of public park land to build the university a parking deck is particularly galling considering that the university is land-banking its own recently cleared Kresge buildings site on the Medical Center campus. To quote the medical school website: "The University Architect's Office anticipates that the site will be transformed into an attractive park-like setting by mid- to late-November of this year."
As proposed, this structure is a parking deck, not a transportation center: Amtrak isn't moving into this building, The "WALLY" track is nowhere near this location, the inter-urban bus services are not relocating from their current locations, and the AATA already has a bus stop on Fuller Road near this site.
If our community is serious about developing a new Transportation Center, than needs other than the university's own desire to build on our park land, while protecting its own property, should be the driving force for its placement. There are other locations in the city along the Detroit-Chicago railroad corridor that should be considered, for example: Mitchell Field ( land owned by the university and located immediately to the east of the Fuller Park site), the recently vacated DTE Energy property directly across the railroad track from the present Amtrak station, and the property located between North Main Street and the river, where the north-south and east-west tracks actually intersect.
This granting of development rights of our own public parks is contrary to the expressed will of the voters, who value and want to protect the park land of our community. It took too many years of dedicated effort and public money to create this ribbon of parks along the river to blithely begin dismantling them without voter approval. Please contact your elected city officials and raise your voice about this issue. Time is of the essence. This project is progressing quickly. George H. Gaston Ann Arbor
Comments
Mick52
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 8:23 p.m.
I agree with My2Bits. What park land? This is an open area, sure its green, but as a park its not used by anyone. In previous articles, the city has been criticized as being over parked. I see parks all over the city with no one using them. It won't hurt to slim some. I do think the city should sell it to the U, get some $ for it.
My2bits
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.
This is a letter to the editor, otherwise I would be disappointed that the staff writer did not clarify what "park land" we are talking about. Perhaps staff could still provide the background and/or a map on this site. I know this area well. We would ALL benefit from this new proposed use at this location. We lose nothing by giving this site to the University. I do agree strongly with protecting our REAL park land. If a land swap will make everyone happy, do it. It would be foolish to kill this project or base your vote over THIS site.
Deb Elmore
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.
This is an important issue and should not be decided by anyone but the taxpayers. The University continues to push like Manifest Destiny across Ann Arbor consuming public and private land. The members of city government that support this proposition without a vote will find themselves without a vote.
Basic Bob
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 9:55 p.m.
How horrible that they want to destroy a surface parking lot next to the railroad tracks. Doesn't the university/hospital have their own undeveloped land with trees on it that they can destroy instead? Trees just destroy sidewalks, sewer lines, and overhead wires. Plus they host a variety of varmints like birds, squirrels, and possums. Yes, it would be better to keep that park land the way it is.
Bonsai
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 9:11 p.m.
let's see, one parking structure built on land that has been a parking lot for a very long time, one extremely ugly university building destroyed to make way for a "park-like" setting... seems like a win for people who "value and want to protect" park land. it is disingenuous at best to call building a structure there as a "blithe dismantling" of parks, since it has been a parking lot for ages
DrD
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:45 p.m.
I think that previous news articles on this project need to be required reading and attached to any new article or opinion. It's annoying that there are residents/readers out there that think that they know everything there is to know about the project when they comment. I am a resident too and I care about park land as well. However, given the alternate location of the parking structure you want moved, this location was a win-win-win for the residents near by, the city, and yes the 'U' too. Not to be rude, but please do more background reading of the decision making process behind this location before you get on your soap box. If you don't mind them making a parking structure on their own land right next door to your house, please forward your address.
Rita Mitchell
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:10 p.m.
If you value our city park land, please speak up for it. All of our parks are at risk for the kind of re-purposing that is being proposed for Fuller Road, unless we, the citizen-owners of our parks, make it clear that we want to decide whether to sell or use our park land for different purposes. Chances are that you are one of the over 80% of our electorate voted in 2008 to require a ballot initiative when the city sells any park land. You can go to the Planning Commission meeting, Tuesday, September 21 at 7 pm, in City Council chambers, and voice your concerns about what is being planned for Fuller Road. This proposal is precedent-setting. If the project proceeds as it is being proposed, no park will be safe from similar plans. What will you do to protect this park land, your favorite park, or the park located nearest to where you live?
Speechless
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 6:04 p.m.
In this specific instance, the concern over giving the university long-term use of a current surface lot (?), technically classified as park space, might be satisfactorily resolved through a land swap. As part of the leasing deal, the Big 'U' could allow the city to annex, for at least through the term of the lease, a parcel of open space immediately adjacent to an existing municipal park. ------------ "Less than two years ago, the voters of Ann Arbor overwhelmingly supported a ballot proposal requiring a public vote to approve the sale of parkland." How about a follow-up ballot proposal that amends the voter-approved language to include long-term leases (or consecutive short-term leases)?
Attempted Voice of Reason
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 2:57 p.m.
Note to Council: Any council member intending to vote for this debacle should have other plans from November on. There is no way anyone voting "yes" will get re-elected. This vote will be on every opponent's campaign material. Even Pat Lesko, write-in candidates, and Republicans will win over any incumbent voting "yes". I will personally contribute to any opponent's campaign. That's a promise and a threat. Do the right thing and vote "no".
jcj
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 12:15 p.m.
Why is it that almost without exception when someone gets elected to a public office they lose some of their brain cells? Mainly the ones that would remind them what they were elected for. And that would be to serve the people that elected them!
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 10:10 a.m.
Answer to trespass: technically, this is a long-term lease, not a sale. Unfortunately, in law the "duck" test doesn't work.
trespass
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 9:58 a.m.
How can AA ignore a ballot initiative?
jcj
Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 7:53 a.m.
The city should not be 'gifting" ANYTHING to the U of M!! Talk about the rich getting richer. At a time when city finances are off the chart dismal to propose giving something away. And that is what this amounts to. Is irresponsible to even consider!