City council needs to consider more than zoning guidelines for proposed 413 E. Huron high-rise
The proposal for a massive 14-story student apartment building at 413 E. Huron St. has made obvious major weaknesses in the city's site plan approval process. Since planning staff says the project meets provisions of the city's zoning ordinance, legal counsel has advised council members they have no choice but to approve the project as submitted. In other words, the authority of council is being construed in the most narrow manner possible — i.e., only zoning counts.
A look at the design for the proposed high-rise at 413 E. Huron. This shows the signature corner at Division and Huron.
Humphreys & Partners Architects
The 413 project proposal was first reviewed by the city's Design Review Board. That group of design professionals made comments on the negative impact of the project's size relative to the adjacent neighborhood. The public input session had one speaker after another speak of their concerns about the size and location of the project, and its overall impacts.
The proposed project goes against established guidelines for design, as included in the city's master plan, its downtown plan, and its overlay zoning design guidelines. Also, there will be significant loss to the character of three of the city's premier historic districts.
The advice council gets from its legal staff is simply: You must approve it as submitted or you will be sued. This advice pits the city's own authority to plan and control development against the deep pockets of developers.
The public should question whether considered critiques by its appointed Design Review Board, concerns from the public, a resolution opposing the project from the Historic District Commission, and provisions in all of the city's design guidelines should be so easily discarded in the site plan review process. If only zoning counts, then what is the purpose of these other steps, which any developer will be free to ignore.
Council does have other options, which have been presented by legal advisors representing at least eight citizens groups. Members of council should utilize these options and vote to send the developer back to the drawing board to deliver a plan that is more in keeping with what the community wants — and deserves.
Norman Tyler is a resident of downtown Ann Arbor.
Comments
Bill Wilson
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:22 a.m.
It's interesting how in this day and age, that the community and Council are practicing an apartheid on university students. This community has no shame.
Townspeak
Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 3:55 p.m.
I am so tired of hearing from a select group of people who this project may impact. You live in a city. You live next to or in downtown. You live next to the busiest street in that downtown. The zoning in proper, as it should be. You have big tall buildings all around you. You bought that house, in that area, with your eyes wide open. You have nothing to complain about. You love your quaint little town, then move to dexter or chelsea. This is Ann Arbor, the county seat, U of M. Who cares about your whining? Not me. I am excited about the residential building downtown and the plan looks great. That is a nasty vacant lot right now that offers NOTHING for this city. Build on it as tall as you can. Bring more kids, adults, whomever downtown. I am so tired of reading about these folks who are living in the past. Grow up, deal with it, you should not want to, nor can, stop progress.
Elijah Shalis
Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
I say build it. This city needs to build up. Just make sure the buildings are good looking.
Jeff Crockett
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:34 p.m.
It's startling how few people have spoken in favor of this project. The pro comments, with perhaps one exception, have been limited to those who stand to gain financially. Why do you think that so many people with no financial interest have been against this project and have taken the time (e.g. many people waited 5 hours and more to speak at the April 15 meeting) to show up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to speak multiple times? Doesn't that tell you something? The reason is that there are at least a dozen important reasons to vote this project down. I have lived in Ann Arbor since 1973, and I have never witnessed as much vocal opposition to a project as this. If you study the story of how this area was zoned as it is, you will learn that the property owners who received $5,000,000 for this property lobbied heavily to get the zoning changed to a higher density use at the last minute for their personal profit. That stinks and explains, along with the arrogance of the developers, why there is so much broad based resistance to this project.
Alice Ralph
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:50 p.m.
Readers should be aware that the City Planning Commission's vote on review of the 413 E. Huron site plan proposal resulted in a recommendation for "Denial".
Bill Wilson
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:24 a.m.
A vote for apartheid... will the police be checking ID's in the area soon?
Scott Reed
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:02 p.m.
The majority voted in favor, which is a more telling measure.
Scott Reed
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:10 p.m.
The real opposition is coming from incumbent landlords who want to box out competition. The 413 E. Huron project will bring more people to live in the downtown who will support local businesses and make Ann Arbor a better and more lively, walkable place. The HDC has been far too meddlesome in this process; it needs to be scrapped or at least have its funding reduced, so that it cannot further harm Ann Arbor's economic prospects.
Alice Ralph
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:47 p.m.
Your comment displays a lack of understanding of the HDC. It is a legal authority established by city council which regulates development in local historic districts approved by city council. These processes are required in order for property owners to benefit from tax credits that contribute to the maintenance of attractive neighborhoods and commercial buildings. The combined impact of various historic preservation programs does not harm economic prospects, but contributes significantly jobs, tourism, property values (and resulting increased tax revenues) and the attraction of talent and businesses to places of character. Not to forget humane places for people to live.
Brad
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:37 p.m.
You sure you "density" people don't just want to move to NYC or Tokyo or something?
Brad
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 10:36 p.m.
So having a another big building full of students makes the downtown more walkable? How's that work?
Alice Ralph
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.
Even if zoning is all that counts, this proposal, for a group of bedroom units that share a kitchen, does not meet any of the definitions that are given in our zoning ordinance. These groupings do not meet the definitions for "dwelling unit" because the group of rooms are not occupied as a "family" nor as a special use exception "functional family". They do not meet the definition of "rooming units" because they share a kitchen. They do not meet the definition of "boarding house" either, nor of "cooperative housing". Further, the zoning ordinance establishes that "Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited." The proposed type of residential occupancy defies definition, is not expressed in our zoning ordinance and so, is prohibited--by our zoning ordinance. The only sites appropriate for this kind of construction are those not subject to Ann Arbor zoning ordinance, i.e., University of Michigan property. (See the story about the university development planned for the Blimpy Burger corner.) That is why this public university may be going to a court to acquire properties from hold-out private owners. The university has autonomy in use of its "public" land. The university also can exclude tenants who are not actually students. Privately managed buildings cannot make such exclusions--on either side. I agree with Norm that if public process is not respected, and does not serve the public interest, then it becomes a travesty of government's obligation to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Then what?
Jeff Crockett
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 7:45 p.m.
With the announcement that U of M is going to build a 600 grad student dormitory, the proposed 413 E. Huron development joins a number of other major student apartments that have sprouted up all over the downtown area. At what point will the Council say enough is enough. Downtown Ann Arbor needs diversity. It needs more full time residents who will support downtown businesses throughout the year. The 413 E. Huron project is designed to be 14 stories of student housing. It has numerous units with three four bedrooms. Professionals and retirees won't live in 413 E. Huron. The likeliest scenario for this building, given the saturation of the student housing market, is that there will be a high vacancy rate; the developers will go bankrupt, and it will be sold. It will be an albatross, just like the poorly designed Bo Schembler building, which is now being torn down. Imagine in fifteen years having to tear down this monstrosity. That would be a nightmare. This location would be perfect for a 5-6 condominium development, which would provide a much more graceful transition to the nearby historic neighborhoods. The fact that the Council is behaving helplessly in all this is a disgrace for Ann Arbor. But the root of the problem is the planning department, some members of the planning commission, and City Attorney, who appear to be surrogates of developers rather than advocates for the citizens of Ann Arbor who overwhelming value a diverse downtown residential community.
Bill Wilson
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:29 a.m.
Gawd... how this sounds like South Africa.
Peter Eckstein
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:35 p.m.
There are a number of ways in which this project does not conform to the relevant laws, ordinances and regulations. This project, if built, will destroy the character of our city's most important, attractive historic neighborhoods--and will discourage the kinds of expenditures and loving care that have gone into preserving its beauty. It will also create great traffic disruption on one of our major arteries twice a year--when students are all at once moving in and moving out. One commenter says that, if we don't want to live in a city that is "constantly evolving," we can move somewhere else. I would suggest that if he wants to live in a city that bulldozes and neglects its most charming and picturesque neighborhoods--and provides incentives for concrete canyons--he can move to Southfield. Yes, Ann Arbor is constantly evolving, but it can do so without bowing down to every greedy out-of-state developer who wants to exploit our city for short-term gain.
Townspeak
Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
No one is bulldozing or neglecting the neighborhood. What a farce! this is why no one believes you historic live in the past people, you make things up. What is there right now is an eyesore. You had years to buy the property and put a tiny coffee shop or dog house there, but you did not. Complain about do anything about it. Now that a real and exciting project is going to go up, you all decide its high time to complaint. You will get no after the fact sympathy from me or anyone who does not live right next to you.
bwacker
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:18 p.m.
Bulldozing a Papa Johns pizza franchise running out of what was probably originally a gas station and tearing down a 1 story brick commercial building with a parking lot that has sat vacant for at least the last decade–if not longer, is tantamount to willful neglect by the city? Are you seriously going to frame your argument on the premise that the two existing buildings are 'charming'? You seem to imply that the neighborhood in question is the city's most attractive and important... are you joking? Are 2 days a year for student moving any worse than all the other traffic congestion resulting from living in a city that has a 43,000 semester based transient population? Yes the tall buildings are going to change the view and create shadows where there are none today, but what do you expect when you live directly next to a downtown commercial district? You could always move to a neighborhood that won't ever have this type of circumstance, there is never a shortage of buyers who want the privilege of living so close to a vibrant downtown.
Doug White
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
The University of Michigan has just received a 110 million dollar donation earmarked for a new graduate student residence hall which will house 600 graduate students. Do we really need even more private sector student housing?
Michael
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:19 p.m.
While I am all for increased density in the downtown core of cities, there is a lot wrong with this particular development. For one, the zoning is simply out of character with the surrounding historic district. Next, the development itself is redundant given the vast amount of student warehouses surrounding the downtown. None of these high-rise developments cater to anyone else except students. If you are a family looking to live downtown, why would you pay $1000 a month for a bedroom closet? The only people who benefit from this project are rich UM students. Professionals, other students, and the like cannot even fathom living in one of these buildings due to the enormous cost of such a small space.
Arboriginal
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
The "student warehouses" are the crappy rentals that make up the VAST majority of this neighborhood. Let's move the kids into the high rises and let families move into houses.
Jon Wax
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:38 p.m.
go ahead and approve it. but, prolly wanna start looking for a new job when you do. Peace Wax
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.
If the current laws will not allow us to regulate bad development - and that is not clear - then improve the laws.
Dirty Mouth
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.
As long as folks keep voting fot Mayor (High-rise) Hieftje, we will continue to end up with these outsized high rise buildings that will never reach 100% occupancy. You reap what you sow.
Barzoom
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:32 a.m.
Have you ever seen the movie "Brazil"?
My2bits
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:27 a.m.
The homogeneous development we are getting, high rise student warehouses, is not what the planners, citizens and council members expected or wanted. These developments lack the ability to create a sustainable downtown that a diversity of apartments, condos, offices and retail would provide. Student warehousing is a new USE that is not expressly permitted by the zoning and thus the council members have a solid defense to deny approval to a development that does not meet the zoning. They have permitted other such developments in the D1 zoning but those don't legally create a precedent if they were approved wrongly.
Gill
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.
So THIS one owner is expected to provide all the shopping and living and working spaces for the entire downtown? I think how it works is you need the people living downtown before the other amenities show up.
bwacker
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:55 a.m.
I honestly don't understand the uproar. If you don't want to live in a city that is continually evolving and a city that is becoming one of the top 3 destinations for new business in Michigan, then move. You live here by choice... you don't own the city and the city doesn't stop evolving the day you started paying property taxes. All of you winers sound like all the other crazies across the country who don't like that the world and our world view is changing/evolving. You sound like the raging right-wingers on Obamacare. Just because you disagree with the laws in place, does not somehow grant you the right to demand they change no matter how loud you protest. Grow-up and embrace the future, or learn to cope. I personally like seeing more taller buildings in the downtown skyline. Maybe we'll even see business development downtown that supports daily living verses restaurants and gallery evening shoppers.
bwacker
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 6:01 p.m.
@Wax: I've lived hear for nearly 45 years. @Others: Huron St. is full of tall buildings and commerce up and down the street, both sides. These 2 new buildings are in keeping with what exists just East of 5th St. and compliment the new building on the South side of Huron. Honestly people... have you driven through the neighborhood in question? It's full of run-down student rental properties that were once nice single family homes. How will this 'hurt' the neighborhood exactly? Replacing a pizza joint–owned by a greedy pizza tycoon who is ultra right-winger, and an empty commercial building which attracts petty crime is better than a 14 story building? Placing the students into these buildings will finally allow this area to return to a home-owner centric neighborhood. I'm sure 60-75 years ago (or however long ago it was), people of the neighborhood were up in arms about the conversions of homes to rentals by greedy rental management firms, so this solution was 'a long time coming'. As I stated before, the city does not stop evolving the day you started paying property taxes. Instead of complaining, how about doing something constructive? Form a neighborhood committee that attempts to work with the building developers in an effort to make the inevitable more palatable?
PersonX
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:54 p.m.
I think that you miss the point of the essay and of the main objections to this project. This is not about stopping all change, or even about stopping all highrises downtown, but about the location and obtrusive mass of this particular building project which will literally hurt the surrounding areas and the people who have invested time and money into preserving a wonderful part of town.
Jon Wax
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.
when did you get here? just curious. Peace Wax
Brad
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:25 p.m.
If we don't like it - leave? You do know that sounds a lot like the Tea Party, right?
My2bits
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:28 a.m.
Student warehouses won't promote the goal sought
ionic
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:49 a.m.
Too bad this guest opinion piece is illustrated by the developer's rendering of the retail corner, and not by the author's illustrations of the negative affect on the adjacent neighborhood. Do not be mislead by the pedestrians; this is not the building entrance. Do not be mislead by the greenery; trees and grass will never grow in this salty, sooty 4' lawn extension.
ArgoC
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:23 a.m.
Gah! That thing fits the zoning rules? Change the zoning!
PersonX
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 3:05 a.m.
Bravo! Council cannot simply conform to the wishes of developers, no matter how inappropriate they may be. It is they who made a mistake in the way the zoning was set up and now may wish to ignore all the city plans that cost so much time and effort. It seems that many members of council probably have reservations about this behemoth, but will they have the courage to take a stand and vote against it?
Gill
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:31 p.m.
Sounds like they need courage to stand up to the vocal minority who want them to vote against things that meet all the code requirements.
Psudolus
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:15 a.m.
Perhaps if you live on the west side of Sloan Plaza this does suck, but one of the issues of living in the downtown part of the city is you get tall buildings. They are building one a cross the street. With a couple more buildings you whiners may get that downtown grocery store you want so badly.
Arboriginal
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:45 a.m.
Who cares what the HDC has to say?
Marshall Applewhite
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:06 a.m.
This building will be a much needed addition to this portion of Huron Street. Bravo to the developers for following the law and painting a vision for the future of Ann Arbor.
Jay Thomas
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:34 a.m.
How is life on the comet, Marshall? Got everything you need?
Mercutio
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:13 a.m.
How about the Historic District and all the neighborhood groups opposing this, as well as all the people who's housing values will fall because they sit next to this behemoth, all threaten to sue the city for apparently not following it's own process? If the city's caving to this because they're afraid of a lawsuit, maybe another suit will make them listen.
1bit
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.
That is certainly their right. I'm not sure whether they could get an injunction to stop the construction, though, and by the time this went through the courts the place would already be built.
1bit
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 11:45 p.m.
Give me a break. This opinion article and many of the comments belong filed in the "sky is falling" category. I'm sorry that you don't like the design. I'm sorry that there isn't enough parking (is there anywhere in Ann Arbor where that will be the case with a high rise?). I'm sorry that it dims your view when you look south. But somehow, someway, Ann Arbor will survive and continue to thrive. If the citizens wanted to buy the property, they had their chance. Their hope appears to be the misguided belief that they could fight whatever would come up irrespective of the actual zoning of the property. Lesson learned.
1bit
Mon, Apr 22, 2013 : 12:03 a.m.
@Jeff: The private developer, like the University, obviously thinks there is a market for this here. They may be wrong. It's their money. The area was zoned specifically for this purpose years ago over the objection of the neighboring residents. That the project is occurring should be a surprise to no one. That 50 people have spoken against it is also unsurprising; I would've expected more. But, yes, over the years there have been other issues. There have been ugly buildings put up that are a worse eyesore (University Towers for one). And the City survives and thrives and then many people forget the angst involved. Like I said above, I generally don't like these structures but the City has painted itself into a corner by design, incompetence, cowardice or all of the above. It's time to move on...
Jeff Crockett
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 8:22 p.m.
The fact is, with the addition of the 600 U of M grad student dorm, the student housing market is saturated. This is a high risk project at the wrong time. The view is just one of many problems with this building. We are not talking about a few neighbors in the immediate vacinity of the project objecting. We are talking about 8 community groups in opposition to this project. Have you listened to televised coverage of the citizens comments? People from every ward have spoken in opposition. Last week, there were over 50. I don't ever recall this kind of outcry. Can you?
1bit
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1 a.m.
The only thing absurd is this silly projection of the vocal opposition as the "majority". It was not "voted down at every stop" otherwise there wouldn't be the current zoning. And, yes, if I don't want my neighbor to build something then I ask them to sell it to me or I find a third party who will build what I want. Stomping your feet and raising your voice only goes so far. Governing bodies do not have to reflect "that negative input" but rather consider it. It has been considered. Look, I'm not in favor of all these sunblockers whether privately owned or owned by the University. But the plans/zoning have been set, arguments have been made and a decision has been made. There comes a time to accept the judgment and move on.
DJBudSonic
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 12:14 a.m.
Citizens of a municipality are not required to purchase a property to keep it from unwanted development, (an absurd notion), instead we are given opportunities to voice our opinion on the value of a development at all levels of project approval. When the majority of voices are against a project, it is incumbent on the governing bodies to reflect that negative input and not allow the development to move forward. This project was 'voted down' at every stop, and still it moves forward. This is not a failure on the citizens part, it is a failure of city leadership to act according to the wishes of the people.
Brad
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 11:44 p.m.
You repeatedly re-elect "High-rise Hieftje" and his "downtown-centric cadre" and what do you get? High-rises in downtown. Shocking.
JRW
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 11:34 p.m.
Developer greed, spineless city council and visions of fatter city tax coffers = a monster student warehouse and degraded historic districts. AA needs to decide what it wants the center city to be in the future: Disneyland for rich students at the expense of everyone else OR a vibrant, dynamic city that includes a wide range of residents from all age groups living in the center city, including adults over 22 who are not rich, and the services to support them. Unfortunately, AA city council has chosen Disneyland.
Peter Baker
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 11:08 p.m.
At what point did we promise property owners in the historic districts that the view from their property would remain historically consistent too?
Gill
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.
Maintain historic views? Like horses and carriages throughout downtown?
yohan
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:58 a.m.
That is not the issue and you know it. Stupid accusations
Machine
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 10:46 p.m.
Maybe they could put Selma cafe on this property. Kill two birds with one stone.
sweetdaddy1963
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 10:29 p.m.
Hello Westwood,Ca of the upper mid-west it's called A2,slow down Ann Arbor it's not just a college town!
ordmad
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.
The legal boat got more difficult after Council failed to pass the moratorium. There was simply no winning legal claim by the developer against that. Still, some council members were simply cowards (for us) on this issue. Why would we expect that to change, particularly given the developer would have a stronger (but by no means a slam dunk) claim if there is specific denial of this building? In the end, all one needs to do is murmur "lawsuit" to get things done in this town. Shameful.
A2M3
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 10 p.m.
If you like Southfield, you'll just Love Ann Arbor!
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.
I believe the point is that A2 is becoming like Southfield, due to projects like this one.
shepard145
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 10:11 p.m.
That makes no sense what so ever.
Veracity
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 9:56 p.m.
One option which I have not heard mentioned is for the city to purchase the land from the developers for a reasonable profit. If needed, I would be willing to pay a few dollars more in taxes to fund a millage for that purchase. Of course I will remain angry that, in 2009, the Planning Commission and the City Council would designate this property and many other properties inappropriately for D1 development. Therefore, I favor a review of the D1/D2 zoning ordinance but wish that those on the Planning Commission and City Council who voted for D1 zoning in 2009 not participate in the review.
Steve Bean
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
One alternative for you, Veracity: don't stay angry. One for the developers: don't build it—it won't pay off. The market's dropping and real estate prices and rents will follow.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 11:10 a.m.
I don't live downtown and I do not want my tax dollars to be spent purchasing the property. If the neighbors don'w want the project built, they should get out their checkbooks and buy the property from the developer.
Veracity
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 2:42 a.m.
Criticism and no reasonable alternatives. Thanks, Ross and and Brad for not being helpful. I guess that the massive building will be constructed though I wonder how many students will want to pay upwards of $1000 per month to sleep in what will be essentially closets. And the half mile walk to campus and another half mile walk further to South University (where the college action is) should discourage some potential student lessees. I can sense failure of the project even now which will leave a white elephant to defile Division and Huron Streets and a formerly very nice historic district lost in the building's shadows.
Brad
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 11:11 p.m.
Maybe you should see if you can get the university to do the "eminent domain" thing on that property.
Ross
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 11:05 p.m.
No way! The developer overpaid grossly for these parcels already. Something like 6+ million. Ann Arbor can't afford a 10mil loss.
Kafkaland
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 9:33 p.m.
Well, if the neighbors are willing to indemnify the city and pay all costs if the city loses a lawsuit, then the city could take the risk of turning this down. But I wouldn't want the city to be on the hook for this.
Bill Wilson
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9:24 p.m.
Mr Snyder, This has been in the news a few times recently, and the developers seem to have all their 'i's" dotted and their "t's" crossed. They've jumped every hurdle... hence the reason they will most likely sue ... and most likely win. The students need this housing. This is not a battle that should be fought.
Jeff Crockett
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 8:11 p.m.
If the development doesn't get approved, the most likely scenario is that the developers will sell the property and look elsewhere. They have promised their investors a revenue stream which won't happen if they get tied up in a lawsuit for several years that has very poor chances of succeeding. There is an element of risk in this. Driving a car is risky too but that doesn't prevent us from driving. Their mistake was paying too much for the property, $5,000,000. How stupid was that? Wh should the citizens of Ann Arbor be held hostage for a dumb move on their part?
C. Robert Snyder
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:19 p.m.
In other words, don't so what's "right", just what's "expedient?" That's but one of the many reasons this country, and the city, are and will continue to be digging out of the money-instead-of-morals mess we're in! C. Robert Snyder
Jay Thomas
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 9:22 p.m.
There just has to be more parking.
Meggie53
Sat, Apr 20, 2013 : 9:22 p.m.
With so much opposition by neighbors and obvious negative inpact on the historical areas this building should never be allowed. If council buckles under fear of a lawsuit they might as well resign and hand over the reins to developers.
Dirty Mouth
Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:09 p.m.
They already have. The city belongs to the highest bidder with the Mayor being the gate keeper. It is done.