Questions
|
Marcia Higgins
(R-Incumbent)
MHiggins@ ci.ann-arbor.mi.us |
Scott Trudeau
(Green)
scott@ mutiny.net |
Dan Sheill (Libertarian)
dsheill@ umich.edu |
Jon Kinsey
(Independent)
kinseyforcouncil@ yahoo.com |
| 1. Most important issues? |
|
Affordable
housing (at all low to mid income levels) is and will continue to be a
problem. Affordable retail and commercial space is also becoming
scarce, driving out local business, artists and artisans, and other
potential renters.
The dwindling funds from the State are a concern. This is
especially problematic regarding the funding from the State to
compensate for
services the City provides to the University (which does not pay taxes
to the City). The City and University should work together to
resolve budget-related tensions (amongst others) and work together in
lobbying
Lansing to secure appropriate levels of funding.
|
I
oppose the expansion of
the Ann Arbor Historic District and would support eliminating the
Historic District altogether. Forcing homeowners to use certain
materials when refurbishing their homes or not allowing them to replace
windows is an overt offence against the right of property owners and
will only lead to higher housing costs especially for those living in
fraternity and sorority houses. Group living homes such as the Greek
Houses do not file individual income tax returns and are therefore not
eligible for the tax benefits offered by the state to cover historic
district homes. What compelling interest does the city have in
attempting to maintain a historic façade in the architecture of
Ann Arbor homes? |
-
The Greenbelt
- Efficient delivery of city services within fiscal constraints
- Residential traffic management
|
| 2. Position on Greenbelt |
|
I
support it. In the absence of state-wide or regional planning
(which is sorely needed) I think this is a good step for the
City. For it to succeed it will require long-term cooperation
with the surrounding townships regarding land-use planning. I
hope it will engender, over the long term, better regional cooperation
to preserve open space, prevent
sprawl (and its associated environmental, economic and aesthetic costs)
and encourage better land use planning.
|
I
essentially feel that the
Greenbelt will only encourage sprawl farther out into Washtenaw County
encouraging the development of even more reoads into Ann Arbor. This
will only create a "leapfrog effect" for sprawl in the area. I am also
worried that by not liberalizing residential zoning regulations within
Ann Arbor if the Greenbelt is approved, rents for students and
low-income residents will appreciate to an unbearable level. Sure the
property values of the homeowners may go up, but then you have to worry
about higher property taxes. Also while the Greenbelt proposal is not
an increase in taxes, it is renewing a park-millage but ultimately
taking money away from parks to pay these subsidies to farmers not to
develop their land. Ann Arbor's parks are already in bad shape because
the city does not charge high enough fees for operating expenses and
upkeep. So what do we do after 30 years where our subsidy deal with the
farmers runs out. By then the value of these farmlands will have
skyrocketed. And unless the city does raise taxes to support an even
greater subsidy for these farmers not to sell their land, the city will
simply be out-bid by home developers. Environmental protection is an
issue more appropriately addressed by the state and national
governments. This Greenbelt involves land in several municipalities
outside of Ann Arbor, and I believe that it is arrogant on the part of
the part of the city to become a property owner in someone else's
backyard. This is especially true since the city did not ask the
affected townships how this would effect their plans to build new
schools, for example. I will vote "no on B." |
I
am a strong supporter of parkland and open-space, in fact I don’t know
anyone who is not. People of Ann Arbor have demonstrated that
parks are a priority and therefore it is a strong signal of deficient
legislation when a large percentage of the population is concerned
about the proposal. People are puzzled, is this about protecting
city source water? About open space, more parks? How will it
work? Who will benefit? Is a golf course open space? What
are the measures of success? Why do all those issues need to be
lumped into a single proposal and why can’t anyone answer these
questions? Why the scuttle in an off year election when only a
small percentage of voters is expected? I think people should be
rightly concerned, this is a proposal not based on a factual
examination of the circumstances and thorough cost/benefit analysis,
rather it is a disingenuous emotional petition to the
voters.
The mayor himself said the land purchases would be
‘insignificant’. Quite frankly, I expect more than insignificant
out of our city council. The voters will support this type of
legislation only once, and I am in favor of telling the council to go
back and do their job – put forward the facts to the voters and a
proposal that is truly visionary, regional, and
significant. A proposal that provides useable open space,
balances environmental concerns with business, and has a clear
objective with specific measures of success. I don’t think
current proposal embodies the type of innovation and inspiration that I
would expect from our leadership. I am suggesting voters reject
this proposal and ask the council to bring back a more significant,
innovative, and articulate proposal to the voters in June or next
November. I am in favor of a truly audacious and more
comprehensive proposal, one that Ann Arbor can be proud of for decades
and a proposal that addresses the trepidations of all
stakeholders. We can and should do more than ‘insignificant’ to
defend and create parks and open space in and around Ann Arbor.
The council right on this, open space is should be a concern for the
voters of Ann Arbor and the window for action is short; let’s not
squander the opportunity with an insignificant response. A ‘NO’
vote on proposal B will provide time to complete the necessary analysis
and result in a stronger proposal from the council in 2004.
|
| 3. Are students residents? |
|
Students
are absolutely residents of the City and deserve all rights,
benefits and services afforded to all residents.
|
Although
not permanent
residents, students in the city of Ann Arbor are entitled to the same
amount of rights and political influence as all other citizens of Ann
Arbor. Univ. of Michigan students collectively should constantly fight
to improve the quality of life for students in the city, even though
they may not stay long enough to see the fruits of their efforts born.
It's actually quite similar to reform efforts by the Michigan Student
Assembly (e.g. I may not stay to see it, but some day we'll finally
have our Spring Break pushed back a week). |
The
students are obviously residents of Ann Arbor. However, as a
group students are typically myopic about the issues facing the
city. Students as well as all interest groups must understand
that issues have to be talked about in the context of the city with
multiple stakeholders.
|
| 4. Enough student input in city? |
|
I
support redrawing the ward lines to include one ward circling the
campus area where the vast majority of students live. This would
ensure at least two seats on Council would be elected by the student
majority of the one
ward.
One of the only points of contact most students have with the City is
the police department: noise violations, MIPs, parking tickets, etc. I
support (conceptually, anyway) some sort of third party board or panel
that can
receive complaints regarding police conduct. As a student and
resident I've heard many troubling stories regarding the conduct of the
police department. It's difficult to ascertain whether these are
just stories or have merit. This independent entity should
receive complaints and investigate those complaints that have
merit. This board should be well advertised and entirely
independent of the police department. This type
of system could help identify the types of situations where the police
department simply has an image problem, and uncover and help correct
abuses. This idea needs more fleshing out, but I think the basic
concept should be explored.
|
Considering
the recent
efforts to expand the historic district into Greek areas southeast of
campus, I do not believe that student concerns are being appropriately
considered on city council. one of my proposals is to re-district the
Wards and create a circular shaped district in the center of town to
greater ensure that students can at least put two other students on
city council. One out of three city residents is a student and although
most are not permanent residents, students should have as much of a say
on city council as anyone else. There would be no Ann Arbor without the
University of Michigan and as students we are an integral part of what
makes Ann Arbor tick so obviously our concerns should be given greater
voice by creating a student ward in the middle of town. |
The
interests of students are adequately represented in city
government. In fact, Chapter 19 of the Ann Arbor City Charter is
specifically intended to protect the rights of renters (who are
primarily students)
|
| 5. City pedestrian friendly? |
|
My
most radical side says: Sod the streets! Tear up the roads
downtown, build a rapid, frequent, 24-hour mass transit system, plenty
of bike lanes, and have cheap storage parking on the permiters of
downtown. Tax
breaks for those that don't own cars (car co-op members would not count
as car owners).
My more serious side says: Encourage density and downtown living.
There is clearly a demand for it. Encourage mixed-use,
mixed-income, in-fill development. Discourage monolithic
development. Improve bike-friendly amenities where and when
possible. Maintain on-street parking on downtow streets.
|
The
City has not cleared
off dirty sidewalks in the center of town on a regular enough basis.
Although some recent improvements of sidewalks in commerical districts
have recently been made over the summer; the appearance and walkability
of most of the sidewalks in predominately student neighborhoods should
be improved. Residential sidewalks continue to be neglected. |
To
make Ann Arbor a more pedestrian-friendly city?’ implies that there
would be no quality of life trade off for those city residents who are
not frequent pedestrians. It is not within the council’s charter
to make the city more pedestrian friendly over any other form of
personal transportation. Rather the council needs to set a
strategic direction for the city that balances pedestrians, drivers,
bikers, and others.
During the first few days of my campaign, I spoke to well over 100
residents. None expressed any concerns regarding the allocation
of city assets to pedestrian friendly measures.
|
| 6. Position on Patriot Act resolution? |
|
I
would have supported the Patriot Act resolution and would support a
more binding ordinance to the extent it could be enforceable. I
think it's important for Council to voice an opinion on these
"tangential" issues, especially when they have such strong effects at
home -- even when Council has no direct influence. I don't see
this as the primary function of the Council but an important one.
|
"The
Ann Arbor city
council passed a resolution designed to safeguard civil liberties some
say are threatened by the USA Patriot Act. The measure could limit Ann
Arbor police enforcement of immigration laws, but was revised to give
the police chief more discretion, The Ann Arbor News reported. The
resolution requires the city administrator to request from federal
officials information about some search warrants executed within the
city and monitor how library records and bookstore records are checked.
It also requires the city administrator to get information on the
extent to which federal authorities are monitoring political meetings
and religious gatherings."
Considering the above summary courtesy of the
Detroit Free Press, I am generally in support of the city's resolution
against the Patriot Act. I'm not sure whether the resolution actually
has any teeth, but I support the message it sends. I believe the "sneak
peak" and some of the detainment powers of the Patriot Act violate the
Bill of Rights. |
To
my knowledge, no part of the Patriot Act has been held unconstitutional
by a court of law - not by judges appointed by Nixon, Carter, Reagan,
Bush, or Clinton. Therefore, one is led to believe that the
claims that it drastically limiting our civil liberties are
overblown. I am for the protection of American citizens from
terrorists, within Constitutional limits. If leading
constitutional lawyers have been unable to convince federal judges that
there are problems with the Act, I doubt that a referendum from a local
government will change the tide of judicial opinion or for that matter
public opinion.
In that context, however The Patriot Act is a disturbing piece of
legislation. After 9/11, we as a society were obviously concerned
about preventing future attacks but this act diminishes what makes
America great - freedom from governmental intrusion. On the other
hand, an unfortunate part of modern politics is that a large portion of
the populace does not believe that government is efficient and capable
of problem solving. The significant amount of pontification in a
local resolution such as this contributes to that belief.
Regarding policies of other branches of government, I certainly
wouldn’t want a future council of a different make up to comment on
portions of the ADA, the Clean Water Act, or the Clayton Act.
|
| 7. Change downtown parking policies? |
|
The
fact that the members of the DDA are unelected and that few people
really understand exactly their purpose (including myself) causes me
some concern. An example will show you why I have reason for
concern.
The City has delegated the running of the City owned parking strcutures
to the DDA. The DDA hires a third-party company (currently
Republic Parking)
to run the structures. The DDA insisted that since they were not
the city government, and since the parking structure employees were not
direct city employees, that they were not required to pay the parking
structure employees a living wage. I'm not sure whether there was
a legal decision on whether the DDA's opinion was legitimate, but
either way the situation is troubling. If the City Council
believes that all City employees should be paid a living wage, and all
contractors the City hires should pay a living wage, then shouldn't the
DDA, as an "arm" of the City government,
be consistent with the City's ordinance? Wages are now at or near
living-wage levels in the City structures due to the workers joining
the Teamsters union and taking matters into their own hands.
I think council needs to take a close look at which functions the DDA
fulfills, and whether the current arrangement is the best way to
accomplish those functions; and whether the DDA is accountable enough
to the Council and to the citizens of the City, in general.
Council should
at least take a more aggressive stance with the DDA. Their recent
decision to simply ask the DDA to "do more" for affordable housing
(without any benchmark or criteria on what "more" should be) amounts to
giving the DDA free reign to do what it will. If Council wants
the DDA to "do more" or "do differently" on any specific issue, they
should clearly stipulate what that should be, and hold the DDA to some
standard.
|
The
City should consider
changing all 2 hour parking meters in town to 4 hour limits while
retaining the 1/2 hour meters. The only problem I have with the DDA was
its improvement of State St. Aesthetically it was no significant
improvement and only resulted in higher rents for businesses there as a
result of the appreciated value of the property. It truly was an
unnecessary expense for Ann Arbor.
|
Downtown
parking is a classic supply and demand issue. It can be
approached from either a demand perspective (price) or a supply
perspective (more spots). It is best left in the hands of city
administrators, not council members to apply the most appropriate
solution.
|
| 8. Housing costs too high? |
|
Ann
Arbor in some ways is a victim of its own success. Rents are high
because people want (or, in the case of students, must) live
here. There are plenty of things that can be done to mitigate the
effects of this increasing demand. Council missed an opportunity
to make it easier for homeowners to add accessory apartments to their
dwellings. This would be an easy way to create a large number of
low-cost rental units while making
the cost of purchasing property for those of middle-income more
possible. The City needs to pressure the University to build student
housing in proportion to the increasing student enrollment. The
most recent dorm
was built in the late '60s and enrollment has been going up ever since!
Lastly, the City needs to end it's knee-jerk reaction against any
proposed structure over four stories tall. There are plenty of
streets where larger buildings would be appropriate and aesthetically
consistant with
the character of the city. If they are mixed-use, mixed-income
developments they can only help bolster Ann Arbor's character and
diversity.
|
Affordable
housing cannot be
solved by rent controls. As hard as this is to believe, my opinion is
that rent control will only contribute to a decrease in the conditions
and quality of student housing near campus. In most of the country,
housing prices are not much higher than construction costs on average.
Where prices are high relative to construction costs, economic analysis
by the New York Federal Reserve Bank in 2002 states that the main
culprit is restrictive zoning (I forgot the exact webpage, but their
site is www.ny.frb.org). Similar to my
opinion on the Greenbelt "smartgrowth" proposal, I believe that
affordable housing mandates and subsidies don't do much help and
ultimately just contribute to a viscious cycle. We need to liberalize
zoning if more housing units within the city are to be encouraged.
|
Since
the founding of our country the free market has been a reasonable
arbiter of asset prices and I believe the majority of Ann Arbor
citizens favor the continuation of that guiding principle.
|
| 9. Re-district city wards? |
|
Yes
(see above). I tend to like the ward system, as it binds a
councilperson to a smaller set of constituents, making it easier to
stay in tune with their more particular concerns. I'm open to the
idea of creating some at large positions on council, recognizing the
semi-transient nature of Ann Arbor's renters, but would not want to
eliminate ward-level candidates. I'm a strong supporter of
Instant Run-off Voting. I recommend checking out fairvote.org for
more information.
|
See
answer #4. Also
though, if it wasn't for the Greenbelt there would be zero interest in
this off-year city council election. Turnout is notoriously low during
these times. In the past, several city council incumbents have run
un-opposed in these odd years. How democratic is that? We should change
the law so that every city council candidate must run for re-election
every two years during the presidential and gubernatorial elections
when there is a greater turnout of politically conscious voters. |
I
would not support the re-districting of the city wards. The
students deserve a majority ward no more than other groups who share a
common interest deserve such partiality. The wards are not drawn
to situate the conservatives in one voting block, the elderly in
another, young families in a third, or doctors in another.
Students should be considered no differently. That fact that I
believe that students are equal citizens of Ann Arbor (question #3),
suggests that they deserve equal treatment. If students
sufficiently exercised their voting rights within the current ward
boundaries as they successfully did in the 1970’s through the Human
Rights party, they could significantly affect the make up of the
council.
The city council is elected through an equitable democratic process; I
support no changes to the current process
|
Biography
|
|
Scott
Trudeau graduated from the University of Michigan in 2001 with a
Bachelor of General Studies with focuses in Computer Science and
Cognitive Psychology. He currently is an employee of the
University of Michigan Law School, and does technology support for
non-profit legal services in Michigan. He has lived in Michigan
his entire life and has been a resident of Ann Arbor for five years.
|
|
|
