I “yelled” at you. Yikes.

Mike, respectfully: I haven't shamed you, and expressly stated at the top that I understand opposition to the project.

The only person in this discussion that's trying to shame/demonize opponents is Rabhi. That's what the first post in this thread is about.

Yep! We do. And we express that through a yes/no on the TIF and living with the consequences of the project not moving forward, or moving forward very different from what’s being proposed, all of which we will not control.

I’m hassling you? You responded to my post.

I understand opposition to the project. I don’t understand your comments, and I strongly disagree with Rabhi’s.

The city doesn't own or control the land, and so it doesn't get to pick who builds on it or what they build. City-owned parcels are different. This isn't a city-owned parcel.

Nope, scroll back up. "Reasonable minds can differ on Arbor South, but Rabhi's opposition ("disgusting," "revolting") is overheated and alarming."

My objection was specific to Rabhi's rhetoric and argument.

See above. What’s your basis for believing that there’s another project, a different developer that the city gets to pick?

We only have two choices. The city has worked with the development team to adjust the project, but that process is over and the choice that's now on the table is approve or deny.

There is no other choice. There is no 350 million that "could go to something else." That's not how TIFs work.

"I would choose to have developers pay their own way."

It's not unfair or unreasonable to ask you to grapple with the logical, real-life consequences of the preferences you're expressing. If you can't stomach the size of the TIF for Arbor South, you need to be comfortable stomaching that site remaining what it is for the foreseeable future.

Insisting that developers always "pay their own way," in this particular case, means that you are choosing Option A, which is "parking lots" instead of "dense, climate-friendly housing on transit lines." It also means that 841 Broadway is still a polluted field.

So, “parking lot.”

And you would also have left 841 Broadway a blighted, polluted field? The principle of not ever providing tax subsidies to private industry is more important, as a community value, than remediating pollution?

Whoa, back up. If you choose “parking lot,” that doesn’t create additional city resources to spend on those other things. The choice facing city leaders is “parking lot” or “this project.”

You still choose “parking lot?”

You’re a climate guy, right? If you had to vote between:
- Parking lots
Or
- Dense housing on transit lines near jobs

You’d choose “parking lots” because of the TIF?

His ideological opposition to TIFs and other forms of public-private partnership would also condemn uncontroversial projects like 841 Broadway (which Rabhi opposed during the approval process but now claims he supports). His views on this issue are extreme and would do real damage.

Budgets are moral documents. Framed just in terms of the tax revenue and city services lost by turning down a 2nd "downtown," Rabhi's reductive, categorical opposition is hard to understand, let alone defend. What would he say to the people harmed? At least we didn't sully the city's honor?

Reasonable minds can differ on Arbor South, but Rabhi's opposition ("disgusting," "revolting") is overheated and alarming.

In the range of outcomes, a 2nd downtown is a best-case scenario: a boon for residents, businesses, and the tax base. Rabhi would turn that down? Wild. #a2council

A brief history of there isn't enough parking in Ann Arbor #a2council

🧵

(I hope @paulisci.bsky.social doesn't mind that I am stealing his bit)

Elite

Separated Bike Lanes Means Safer Streets, Study Says — Streetsblog USA Cities that build protected lanes for cyclists end up with safer roads for people on bikes and people in cars and on foot, a new study of 12 large metropolises revealed Wednesday.

Never forget, a 13-year study found that protected bike-lanes led to a drastic decline in fatalities for all road users.

ALL ROAD USERS.

What about painted bike-lanes? No safety improvement at all.

For sharrows, it’s actually safer to NOT have them.

Via @usa.streetsblog.org @nyc.streetsblog.org

Not close

🧵 This is an important and unintuitive point. This does not mean cities should plan to be 4-5x bigger. What is permitted does not dictate what is built. A high-zoned capacity allows for more thoughtful and contextual redevelopment because there are many more development opportunities to meet demand.

Never. And that would be a different discussion.

When Yousef Rabhi talks about making “historic investments” in public housing and co-ops (instead of just, uh, making it legal to build housing), he’s inviting Ann Arbor to make the same bet: let’s try this unicorn solution, whoops it failed oh well I’m going to inherit my parents’ house. #a2council

These are just awful people.

Austin’s Surge of New Housing Construction Drove Down Rents After decades of explosive growth, Austin, Texas, in the 2010s was a victim of its own success. Lured by high-tech jobs and the city’s hip reputation, too many people were competing for too few homes....

oh look at that www.pew.org/en/research-...

#a2council

www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...

Have you seen this petition yet? Support the Michigan Housing Readiness Package

#A2Council Petition to support the excellent housing bills in Lansing. Go sign! c.org/nZNzBmcSNK

I’m happy to buy you a beer, anytime, if you’ve got concerns about the Plan.

No. People are excited about the possibility of a city with more housing types and options.

The Plan isn’t a private conspiracy; it’s a public document, prepared in public, with clearly stated goals. No one is coming for your house, and no one is saying you’re wrong for owning one.