Ann Arbor's Greenbelt total: 3,200 acres after latest purchase
The city of Ann Arbor will add another 30 acres of property to its Greenbelt for $140,367 following action taken by the Ann Arbor City Council.
The council voted unanimously Monday night to approve the purchase of development rights on the Duane Thomas and Judith Lobato farm property in Scio Township.
"This works out to about $4,500 per acre for the taxpayers in the city to preserve this land just outside of our city limits in perpetuity, so I'm excited about this," said Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward and a member of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission.
The purchase of development rights keeps the property in the hands of the owner but ensures the land can't be developed and will remain preserved as open space.
Courtesy of City of Ann Arbor
The city pays for Greenbelt purchases using proceeds from its Open Space and Parkland Preservation Millage, which brings in more than $2 million annually from city taxpayers.
The Greenbelt program was approved by Ann Arbor voters in November 2003, at a time when a significant amount of development activity was occurring around Washtenaw County and farmland was being sold for development.
Ann Arbor voters authorized a 0.5-mill tax for 30 years, which provides funds for parkland acquisition within the city and the preservation of open space, agricultural land, and other natural habitats outside the city in a designated Greenbelt district.
An appraisal for the latest 30-acre purchase was completed in January and the fair market value of development rights was determined to be $189,000. The landowners agreed to make a donation of 50 percent of the fair market value, or $94,500, city officials said.
In addition to the $94,500 the city is paying for the development rights, another $45,867 is going toward due diligence, closing and endowment costs.
Ginny Trocchio, one of the administrators of the Greenbelt program, offered an explanation of the latest purchase in a memo to council members.
"The easement is for the purpose of preservation of the property's agricultural use, including the protection of prime, unique or important soils, by preventing any use that would significantly impair or interfere with the agricultural value," Trocchio wrote.
Other Greenbelt purchases so far this year:
- $804,392 for the 128-acre Lee and Lori Maulbetsch farm in Northfield Township
- $1.34 million for the 218-acre Nancy Geiger and Rose Ann Geiger farm in Salem Township
- $583,187 for the 115-acre Nancy Geiger and Rose Ann Geiger farm in Northfield Township
- $699,992 for the 110-acre William Lindemann and Karen Weidmayer farm in Lodi Township
The city leveraged more than $1.2 million in federal farmland protection grants toward three of those purchases. It didn't get grant funding toward the latest 30-acre purchase, nor did it get grant funding for the 115-acre property in Northfield Township.
The city is holding a bus tour this Saturday of farm and open space properties that have been protected by the Greenbelt program. The registration deadline already passed.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
russellr
Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
You are so greedy for land and do not have the funds to take care of it. Lets keep hoarding it up while my taxes have went up for the last 3 years in a row to pay for shortfalls on the fire dept. Come on use some wisdom on what is important. You have enough greenbelt for crying out loud.
Meral
Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
What good is that when we can NOT get City services for leaf pick, they want to sell the beautiful Huron Hill Golf course, Police and Fire personal has been cut to minimum . This is an insult to intelligent people of AA. Go gigure.
LarryJ
Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 12:28 p.m.
It's all about maintaining quality of life. Having some open farmland is better than totally surrounding A2 wtih barren subdivisions with McMansions. Having a defined city is better than a strip mall megalopolis. It's money well spent.
Halter
Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 12:12 a.m.
Oops -- just realized they were going to delete my previous comment since I used a "banned" word....So let me repost... Here's the thing....I would normally just add my 2 cents about this is ill-advised to waste money on a Greenbelt. I was not for a Greenbelt when it was proposed. I didn't vote for it. And I am not for wasting this money now. Unfortunately, your friends and neighbors thought this was a GREAT idea a few years back, and decided to waste your money on this Greenbelt project. Hence, I am not going to add my two cents today about this topic. I will just let you blame your friends and neighbors. What goes around comes around.
Halter
Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.
Here's the thing....I would normally just add my 2 cents about this is stupid to waste money on a Greenbelt. I was not for a Greenbelt when it was proposed. I didn't vote for it. And I am not for wasting this money now. Unfortunately, your friends and neighbors thought this was a GREAT idea a few years back, and decided to waste your money on this Greenbelt project. Hence, I am not going to add my two cents today about this topic. I will just let you blame your friends and neighbors. What goes around comes around.
djm12652
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 8:56 p.m.
what might the chance be that the new water art at ugly hall could be transferred to one of these parcels so I don't have to look at it? and by the way, this "belt" doesn't look like a belt at all, more like a land grab...
Top Cat
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 8:36 p.m.
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." Ronald Reagan.
Mike58
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
The Ann Arbor Greenbelt Program does keep our property values artificially high compared to the surrounding cities and towns and lets the city council indirectly control low income housing development in in the area. The program just serves to maintain the status quo for the folks that want to keep their 1960-1970's vision of AA. They sold it as a prevention to urban sprawl and the AA electorate bought it.
grye
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
What if an initiative is put on the ballot to repeal the Greenbelt fiasco, the purchased property is sold, and the money is put away for unforseen emergencies (not for public art, more unkept parks, other idiotic expenditures, etc.)?
empedocles
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
Many negative comments, but future generations will appreciate the wisdom of these purchases financed by a voter approved millage.
Halter
Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 12:09 a.m.
I doubt it -- most future generations are going to wonder why Ann Arbor is such a small, backward, dinky town rather than the larger thriving communities all around it.
Arboriginal
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.
Would that be like Fuller Park? Somebody designed this lovely park that encompasses both sides of Fuller Road. You know, lovely stone walls, open spaces. Now it looks like the city is going to build a parking structure in the park.
Dog Guy
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
Wow! 3,200 acres of smoke, mist, and fantasy; some less-concrete measurement unit is needed: The Helen could be used to measure the natural beauty capable of launching 1,186 ships (or the anti-Helen ugliness of 1,186 tax foreclosures). Terry Pratchett's thaumometer might measure 780,000 thaums of magic per average acre, but Michigan still does not allow dove hunting--again a total waste of tax money. Ann Arbor's UM sophomore voters expected something for our money, so I suggest that 3,200 acres equals one (Professor Farnsworth) MegaFonzie of coolness. Let us revel in our green coolness.
Arboriginal
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
What a boondoggle! When will the Mayor and his cronies give up the right to sell parkland at will? If parkland is to be sold, it should be up to the residents to vote on such matters. It sure looks like we are giving parkland to the U (Fuller Road Station) when the U has plenty of property just east of the coming parking structure....errrr..."Transit Station"!
B2Pilot
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
This whole theory is nice; however the practicality and the choosing of 'Winners' and Losers is wrong in a democratic society. The city is paying land owners outside of their jurisidication (city) to not develop their land. So the city is paying them hundreds of thousands in cash, the land owers property then becomes more valuable and marketable when they go to sell. Who is to say that the surrounding townships who lose this tax base, will not change the zoning? so the 110 acres in Lodi township may have a strip mall next to it 1 day? How do the surrounding townships feel about the city buying their property, losing taxes, and not being able to develop or manage the way the township residents intend?? This in my opionion is bad policy, and i will guarantee that nothing is forever! 20 years from now that land will be the new city vehicle service center or sold to a developer. Another policy created for the special interest groups that are pushing for the tennet housing structures downtown.
grye
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
What a waste. Purchasing property outside the city that I can only drive by and look at it. I cannot use it in any way. I still can't believe the voters were sold this bill of goods. The mayor should start selling refrigerators to Eskimos.
grye
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
Wish I could have seen what was taken away.
iceman
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 3:27 p.m.
I voted against the greenbelt in 2003 and I'd love to vote against it again ! I like supporting parks. But buying property rights to land I can't use is just nuts !
cette
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
Having the city buy for a greenbelt was a stupid idea that needs to be put to rest...
Mike
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
We pay taxes for this? Our schools and police are being cut, our roads and services reduced and we vote for stupid things like this and build more bike paths????????? Is it just me or what?
63Townie
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 3:33 p.m.
Back in 2003 Ann Arbor was whistling past the graveyard. Some residents (like this one) had foresight and voted against the Greenbelt. Alas, common sense lost out again and now we're paying HANDSOMELY for it.
hut hut
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
Buying property for preservation this close to the city limits will lead to leap frogging development further away from the city because the City, primarily elected officials and the leftover overpaid Fraser managers (Barnett, Postema et al), are inept at making and keeping Ann Arbor a resident/customer friendly place where people might actually want to live. It costs and arm and leg to live here. City services are mediocre at best. Why do we continue to buy property that does not reduce sprawl? We have a local government, because of it's own ham handed management, discourages people to live in the city limits? This seals my vote for any candidate who runs against Hohnke.
Ming Bucibei
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.
The greenbelt concept is a waste of taxpayer funds when the city and state are broke!! Ming Bucibei
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.
Actually, you are wrong. The greenbelt is designed to set aside land and to reduce sprawl. Thank goodness for the greenbelt which only improves the quality of life for all, but also contributes to a far more dynamic city (Ann Arbor).
EyeHeartA2
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
"Ann Arbor voters authorized a 0.5-mill tax for 30 years, which provides funds for parkland acquisition within the city " ...and yet we want to develop Huron Hills ...and yet we turn parts of Fuller Park into a parking structure. The inmates are running the asylum.