Archive for November 2009

« Local in Ann Arbor home page

Money for Art’s Sake

November 30, 2009

As discussed in our previous post, the Percent for Art program is the result of the Public Art Ordinance passed by Council in 2007.   This has been a signature program of the Mayor, John Hieftje, who campaigned on it as its champion.

As the Ann Arbor Chronicle has reported through a series of articles, the “poster child” for this program is the Dreiseitl project. With every new discussion comes a series of outraged comments from readers.  The project itself has come in for plenty of criticism on practical and aesthetic grounds.  But many of the comments, like this one from the AnnArbor.com commenter John Galt, address the cost at a time of scarcity and other priorities for the city:

Bridges are near collapse. Roads are crumbling. There will be less snow removal. Police and Fire Budgets are to be cut. The school budgets are to be cut. —Fine, we are in a recession—these things may need to happen. BUT, we should shuffle the money to maintain the basics and cut or eliminate the “nice-to-have” items until we recover. This is clearly a nice-to-have item. And I cannot support this type of spending with the rest of the city and country crumbling around us. (It’s like a homewner, who cannot afford to pay the mortgage and heat, who decides to go out and buy that flat-panel TV.—got to have priorities.)

As we speculated earlier, councilmembers who voted for the Percent for Art program in November 2007 must have been surprised at the numbers of dollars actually flowing into this program.  It probably sounded as though it would be just a little bit added to big projects (how big can 1% be?).  Indeed, AnnArbor.com, in its recent editorial supporting the approval of the sculpture,  continues this image: “Two years ago, Ann Arbor joined cities like Madison, Seattle, Austin and Santa Fe in setting aside 1 percent of money from development projects to support public art.”

But Council didn’t read or understand what they were signing off on.  The ordinance doesn’t say “development” or “buildings” or even “construction projects beyond minor additions”.  It says capital improvement projects.  The capital improvement budget of the city is very big and very complex.  There are a few exclusions, but otherwise this means that every capital improvement the city does is subject to this surcharge.

Here is the actual text:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, all capital improvement projects funded wholly or partly by the city shall include funds for public art equal to one percent (1%) of the construction costs identified in the initial project estimate, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. Where a capital improvement project is only partly funded by the city, the amount of funds allocated for public art shall be one percent of that portion of the project that is city-funded, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. All appropriations for capital improvements falling within the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to include funding to implement the requirements of this section 1.

As CM Kunselman is quoted, when he voted for the Percent for Art program, “he said that he did not realize at the time that the program would pull money from what he thought were restricted funds”.  In our previous post, we quoted his questions to the city attorney (answers were confidential and not made public) as to whether the parks millage and an enterprise fund like the stormwater fund could legally be assessed for this program.  Clearly to this point the assumption has been yes.

Looking at the line item assessments for the program is even more startling than looking at the summary numbers.  (See FY 08 arts funding (total to the arts is $328,889) and FY 09 arts funding (total to the arts is $530,457.)  Did Council really think that they would be assessing the street resurfacing program (over $160,00 projected through FY 2011)?  And sewer mains?  ($826,725 projected through FY2011.)  Those are infrastructure, not “development”.  And, as CM Kunselman highlighted, did the voters intend to vote for art when they voted for the parks millage?  (It certainly wasn’t on the ballot.)  There is an effort, as with the recent West Parks improvements, to say that the funds will be used for art at that location.  But it is difficult to imagine art associated with the “WWTP Sewage Pumps Repair” (I scarcely think many of us will be visiting the wastewater treatment plant for an aesthetic experience, though I’m sure it could provide one).  That last item, by the way, yielded $2,799 for art.  The “Solid Waste Management Plan Update 2008-2013” gave the arts $1,000.  For the “Water System Distribution Monitoring and Security”, the arts gained $17,500.  And single-source recycling, not yet instituted, is already forecast to provide the arts with nearly $55,000 in 2010 and 2011.  A real puzzlement is that the arts are charging the city for $1000 for  “Landfill Closure”.  I’m guessing that the Stadium Bridge reconstruction is already ticking up the dollars nicely (a spreadsheet not shown here projects $14,000 for bridging art in 2010 and 2011, but I’m guessing all the costs have not been registered yet).

Beyond ridicule, these charges against basic infrastructure and operations raise major concerns.  As CM Kunselman identified, the water utilities are enterprise funds.  That means that they have to produce a balanced budget – or we all see raises in our water and sewer fees.  Likewise, programs funded by a millage were voted in to provide very specific services and benefits.  If we cream off a percent, it means that dedicated funds, which were sold to the voters for one purpose, are being diverted for another.  That is in a sense a fraud and is also a loss of service (yes, I’m still sore about that $7,000 that was denied to Project Grow).

Margaret Parker, the chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, is quoted by AnnArbor.com as saying that the council should go ahead and spend the money on the Dreiseitl project because “If the money were not used for this piece, it would go back to the Public Art Fund and could not be used for any other reason. Even if the Percent for Art ordinance were eliminated, the money would go back to the designated funds for the capital projects that generated them – sewer, water, transportation, etc.”  (This was in counter to the idea of spending the money on the homeless, etc.)  But why should these funds be taxed for art?  It is not free money.  It is money being taken directly from needed infrastructure and services.  It is adding to the cost of doing ordinary business at a time that the city is cutting budgets elsewhere.  It means that additional money needs to be found, or services and infrastructure improvements reduced.  How can that be justified for what is, after all, a discretionary use?

Christopher Taylor, in an email to constituents detailing his accomplishments (and disappointments) for the year, said, “Council will address the Commission’s proposal in December and, I  believe, a temporary reduction in the Public Art Program”.  I hope that this is so.

The next post will discuss the Bolt Decision and its importance in deciding the legality of these charges to fee-paid and millage-dedicated funds.

UPDATE: Here is the text of an email sent by Karen Sidney to Mayor, Council, and a host of interested citizens (Dec. 2, 2009):

Dear Mayor and Members of Council: I have been following the discussion of the art in public places program. I have several questions that have not been answered by the discussion to date.

1. Why has 1% from ineligible capital projects been transferred to the Art in Public Places Fund? A comparison of the city staff prepared spreadsheet by project with the city’s financial reports shows that $18,300 was transferred to the Art in Public Places Fund in fiscal year 2008 for ineligible projects. Another $39,500 was transferred in fiscal year 2009. The ineligible transfers are included in the total reported in the city’s FY2008 audited financial statements.  The FY2009 financial statements are not yet available.

2. Why was $10,000 from the new corporate hanger project not transferred to the Art in Public Places fund? Did the corporate hanger project include at least $10,000 for art as part of the project?

3.Why are there no transfers to the Art in Public Places Fund for the police/courts building and why does the staff prepared schedule fail to include $250,000 from the police/courts building project? Is the intent to pay $250,000 for the Dreiseitl project directly from the Ann Arbor Municipal Center fund (fund #8) and the balance from the Art in Public Places Fund?

4. For the portion of the Dreiseitl project paid from the Art in Public Places Fund, how does this expenditure meet the ordinance requirement that it be related to the purposes of the funds that have transferred money to the Art in Public Places Fund? For example, the Streets Millage Fund and the Sewer Fund are the two largest contributors. How is the Dreiseitl project related to the purposes of these funds?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

SECOND UPDATE: The Council voted on December 7 to reduce the percent from 1% to 0.5%.  This did not alter the structural impropriety of the program, but is a short-term fix.

Categories: civic finance, politics

Comments: 4 Comments

For Art’s Sake

November 30, 2009
model

A model of the water sculpture. The gray tiles under it represent flowing water. Photo by the Ann Arbor Chronicle.

There have been quite a few pointed remarks by the public about the sculpture by German artist Herman Dreiseitl, proposed for the police-courts addition.  In fact, various commenters in the Ann Arbor Chronicle report make numerous anatomical comparisons that even suggest a female equivalent is needed to balance the priapic effect of the sculpture. (See a slide show highlighting aspects of the artist and his vision here; also a more complete description here.)

It is fun and easy to ridicule the piece, but its price tag (getting close to $1 million)  in a time of scarcity has raised more serious questions.  Is the Percent for Art program an example of misplaced priorities for public money?  And further, is it even appropriate – or legal?

Council will reportedly be considering the project on December 7.  (The Ann Arbor Chronicle has a useful chronology and explanation of current issues.   And now AnnArbor.com has come out with an editorial urging the Council to go ahead with the project.  It has elicited a number of comments, to date none in support of its position.  These comments join others over the last several weeks and sort out into several themes:

1. Spending priorities should be for crumbling bridges, failing dams, or unbuilt skate parks.  (And let’s throw in the Senior Center, the Mack Pool and other orphan services that are continually being threatened by penny-pinching budgeteers.)

2. The selection of an artist from another continent, let alone another state or city, does nothing to support local artists.

3. The design is ugly (if hilarious)  and will fail.

Earlier, every discussion of the Dreiseitl sculpture/water feature has elicited similar comments.

The focus on this high-priced and controversial project is an opportunity to reconsider the entire program on which it is based, the Percent for Art, or, as the ordinance states, the Public Art Ordinance, approved by Council on November 5, 2007. The purpose of the ordinance is (quoting):

City council has determined that the creation of public art will improve the aesthetic quality of public spaces and structures, provide cultural and recreational opportunities, contribute to the local heritage, stimulate economic activity and promote the general welfare of the community.
City council recognizes the responsibility of government to foster the development of culture and the arts. It is therefore declared to be municipal policy that a portion of expenditures for capital improvement projects be devoted to the purchase and maintenance of public art.

Now who can be against that? (Although I don’t get the part about stimulating economic activity, unless you mean Art Fair.) Art and culture make up one of the pillars of our civilization. My personal idea of a good time is a visit to an art museum or a play. Artists enliven our community in many ways and help define what it is to be human and to be aware of the complexity and wonder of the universe.

But then we get to the bottom line.  The ordinance says that “all capital improvement projects funded wholly or partly by the city shall include funds for public art equal to one percent (1%) of the construction costs identified in the initial project estimate, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project”.

One can only speculate on what the councilmembers were thinking when they voted for this.  It must have seemed like just a little bit (1%) added to really big projects, like the city hall itself.  After all, if we are going to increase the budget for such things as LEED certification and state-of-the-art stormwater retention, surely throwing in a nod to art is reasonable.  And it would be hard for politicians to say no to something like this.  The Arts Alliance has been circulating a candidate questionnaire for the last several elections.  It has just two questions:

“1. What is your position on public funding for arts and culture?
2. If elected, what measurable actions will you take to ensure that arts and cultural offerings survive and thrive in Washtenaw County? Please be specific.”

What politician can say “I don’t agree that we should use public funds for arts and culture.”? (I failed to send mine in after dithering about language for days.)

But – public art and publicly funded art are not necessarily the same thing, nor do they need to be.  Much public art is the result of bequests or donations.  Before the Percent for Art ordinance was passed, we had the Commission for Art in Public Places (CAPP), whose modest grant from the city was supplemented by private donations and money from other sources for specific projects.  For example, the public art on the Fourth and William parking structure included $50,000 from the DDA and a sizeable donation from the family of the late Reuben Bergman (the first DDA director in recent times).

The Cube - perfect public art. Photo by the Ann Arbor Chronicle

The Ann Arbor Chronicle recently had a discussion that included a picture and history of the Cube.  Now there is a real piece of public art.  Ever watched kids fascinated with it?  Ever wished you could rotate it too?  It is beautiful, interactive and long-lived.  And it was a donation.

The councilmembers must have been startled when the dollars started to flow in to the new fund.  Whereas the 2007 grant to CAPP was all of $7,000, the amounts are now in the millions.  And indeed, the Dreiseitl project – even just part of it – is priced at nearly three-quarters of a million dollars.

There are, indeed, some signs of second thoughts. Councilmember Christopher Taylor recently sent an email to constituents asking whether the money should be spent on the art – or on human services.  (Council has recently allocated additional money to provide sleeping spaces for the homeless.)  And CM Stephen Kunselman added some questions to a recent council agenda:

“Are funds from the voter approved Park Millage being used for this project? If so: Are any funds from the Park Millage being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so: Please provide the voter approved Park Millage language that authorizes said funds to be directed to public art. If such language is not explicit, then, please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that voter approved Park Millage funds can be directed to other uses such as public art by Council majority approval.

If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Are funds from the Stormwater Fund, a utility enterprise fund, being directed to the 1% for Art Fund?
If so: Please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that utility enterprise funds, including loans from the State, can be directed to public art by Council majority approval.

If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

As reported later by the Chronicle, answers to CM Kunselman’s questions were provided confidentially.  But he is on to something with them.

In the next post, we will examine the method and legality by which the Percent for Art program is funded.

Categories: civic finance, politics

Comments: 5 Comments

The Secret Plan Online

November 23, 2009

The City of Ann Arbor has posted the six proposals submitted for the Library Lot (319 S. Fifth) on their RFP website.

I have only recently obtained a (bad) copy of the Secret Plan (originally submitted with a date of May 2009).

Students of the subject may like to examine it for comparison to the Valiant Partners’ most recent proposal and to others.  A text-only version (no images) is here.

UPDATE: AnnArbor.com has a story on the proposals that includes some nice pictures and an overview of each.  I’ll be doing an analysis of the four development proposals tomorrow.  I have had difficulty in downloading the Dahlmann Part I proposal.  I’d be interested to know if others have experienced that problem.

SECOND UPDATE: Actually, when I said I’ll be doing an analysis, I meant “I’ll be starting to read them in depth tomorrow”.  Watch this space, but don’t hold your breath.  It’ll be another day or so.

Note: the city has posted the time and place of the Advisory Committee meeting, 11:00 a.m. on December 4th in the 6th floor conference room (a very small room).  That is encouraging.

With regard to the download problem: the Dahlmann part 1 file is 38 MB. I was never able to download it with my Firefox browser but my inhouse computer guru was able to get it with Internet Explorer.

AnnArbor.com added a poll to their story.

Categories: civic finance

Comments: 2 Comments

Looking Backward and Forward to the Conference Center

November 20, 2009

Now that the date (November 13) has come and gone for submission of proposals, we are all looking forward with anticipation to see what has actually been put on the table for what the city of Ann Arbor is calling “319 S Fifth Avenue Lot – RFP #743”.  As we previously reported, the issue surfaced at the January 2009 Council retreat, when City Administrator Roger Fraser revealed that the city had received an unsolicited proposal for a conference center.  Later, we were able to view and report on the proposal (The Secret Plan for the Conference Center and How the Secret Plan Would Work).  Later, Councilmember Sandi Smith brought forth a resolution for an RFP that would solicit proposals for a development on the “Library Lot”.  It seemed clear that this was a prelude to Council’s approval of a conference center plan.

Although we complained at the time that this RFP  was an abridgment of proper public process, it seems CM Smith was doing us a favor.  According to a selection of emails from a recent citizen FOIA, she was actually trying to broaden the discussion from a single-source decision.  In a January 12 email memo to Roger Fraser (two days after the Council retreat on January 10),  she says:

Roger,
I feel very strongly that we need to address this area more globally than we are currently doing. Allowing a single proposal to move the idea of the conference center forward, stalling the parking structure and even moving the BTC onto Fourth all have huge ramifications on this central core. We have only one chance to get this right.

(The “BTC” refers to the Blake Transit Center.  There has been talk on and off, including at the retreat, about relocating it to free up the entire block south of the Federal Building, including the Old Y property.)

CM Smith, who is a long-time DDA board member, then moved to bring her council colleagues into the discussion for a January 23 meeting.  (As we noted earlier, there were no minutes for this meeting, so we don’t know how many councilmembers attended or what they discussed.)

But the emails show that the original proposers of the Secret Plan, the Valiant Group, continued a chummy collegial exchange with DDA officials.  Fritz Seyferth, a chief organizer, wrote on February 11, 2009:

Susan –
Please call with any feedback you got on the meeting re what may go above the parking structure. We have
received a more positive feedback from our concept from some on Council, so that is good.
Call anytime.. .Fritz

Later emails are mostly requests and transmittal of information, especially about the underground parking structure.  Still, from the tone, it is clear that at least in early months this year, the group was pretty sure they had an inside track.  With the issuance of the RFP, they have encountered some competition and, we hope, some chance for public scrutiny and comment about the fate of this parcel.

And there will be a lot to discuss.  There were six proposals submitted by the November 13 deadline.  AnnArbor.com’s article stated that they had some difficulty in getting a look at the proposals.  “Dee Lumpkin, the city’s procurement assistant…said she didn’t think copies of the proposals could be released while under review. A Freedom of Information Act request by AnnArbor.com for copies of the proposals is under review by the City Attorney’s Office and the city’s FOIA coordinator.”  As of today (November 20), the proposals have not yet been released, but the initial waiting period of five business days which the city was allowed by FOIA will expire today.  Meanwhile, the city did release a summary of the proposals and their contents.

Four were much as one might expect, some variation of a hotel/conference center or a housing development (Valiant Partners has now added condominiums to their mix):

Valiant Partners LLC Acquest Realty Advisors Inc Beztak Land Company Jarratt Architecture
White Plains NY Bloomfield Hills Farmington Hills Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor Town Plaza Hotel & Conference Center @Hotel and Retail Center All Seasons of Ann Arbor the Fifth a2
Hotel, conference center, condominiums, restaurant, retail Hotel, meeting spaces, retail, restaurant Senior citizen apartments, retail, restaurant, office Hotel, meeting spaces, condominiums, affordable housing, outdoor market, retail, restaurant
Conference center: 32,000 s.f.Hotel: 150 roomsCondos: 12Retail/restaurant: 5,000 s.f. Hotel: 190 roomsRetail & Restaurant: 8,850 s.f.Meeting space: 5,340 s.f. Senior Apartments: 148 unitsRetail etc: 12, 500 s.f. Hotel: 84 roomsCondos: 50-60Meeting Rooms: one floorRetail etc.: one floor

But two are different: the “Ann Arbor Community Commons” group, led by Alan Haber and Alice Ralph, proposed an open public space; and Dennis Dahlmann (Dahlmann Apartments) proposed a public park that is fully developed with features such as an ice rink, a pavilion, and a water feature.   Clearly there is a different vision there.  I hope that this vision is at least explored in the review process.

The proposals are presumably under so-called “technical review” by staff at this time.  According to an email from Jayne Miller, Community Services Area Administrator, it consists of the following:

Administrator Lead – Jayne Miller

Project lead – Matt Kulhanek

Attorney’s Office – Kevin McDonald

Planning & Development – Wendy Rampson

Systems Planning – Cresson Slotten

Project Management – Alison Heatley

Finance – Mike Pettigrew

Parks & Recreation – Jessica Black

DDA – Susan Pollay

Beginning December 4, the “advisory committee” appointed by Council will begin to consider the proposals.  (We hope they are allowed to see them before then.) Those are: CM Margie Teall, CM Stephen Rapundalo, Eric Mahler (Planning Commission), John Splitt (DDA Board), and Sam Offen (Parks Advisory Commission).

According to the schedule, the advisory committee is supposed to begin interviews the week of December 7 (after having met as a group only the previous Friday).   A recommendation is to be brought to Council at the second meeting in January.  This would ordinarily be January 18, but that is Martin Luther King day, and Council has not yet set its calendar for 2010.  Currently it is expected that Council would make a selection on their February 15 meeting, and then award the contract on March 1.  There is a sense of rush, since this begins the construction season, when the DDA will need to coordinate with a developer while constructing the parking garage.

The committee has a lot to consider.  They will have been advised by the technical committee of any flaws in the proposals such as poor site planning, unfeasible financing, or lack of responsiveness.  Ah, but there is the rub.  The RFP requirements are very short:

1. Beneficial use of the site. Any proposal for this site must demonstrate a clear benefit to the community and be consistent with the recommendations of the Downtown Plan, and A2D2 initiative. Preference will be given to proposals that incorporate a use (or uses) that provides a publicly available service to the community, for instance, building or open space that may be used for public meetings, recreation, or civic/ cultural events.

2. Environmental benefits. The development proposal should incorporate to the greatest extent possible environmentally sensitive design and energy efficiency features that follow Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. In addition,the project should propose innovative and environmentally friendly runoff water management and seek to improve water quality.

3. Financial return. The proposal must provide a positive financial return to the City. In the absence of other considerations, the City has a fiduciary responsibility to obtain fair market value upon the sale of City assets. Long-term lease or other property arrangements will be considered, but must meet this financial return criterion.

Note that #3 says that any proposal must be a moneymaker for the city in the absence of other considerations. Will the technical committee eliminate the two open space proposals if they do not fill that requirement but do a better job of filling the other two?

I hope that the citizen advisory committee does have a chance to consider all the proposals unless one appears to be fraudulent or otherwise irrevocably flawed, and that the open space proposals are not immediately discarded even though neither presumably is a straightforward sale or lease of the parcel.

Some other questions I’d like to think the committee will consider.

1. Is there really any demonstrated need for additional conference and hotel space?  Can we see some figures and not just take that as a given?

2. Will either a hotel or a residence use up all the expensive new parking that we are indebting ourselves to build? (I hope that we aren’t going to hear that senior citizens don’t need cars.  Tell that to the residents of Courthouse Square.)

3. Does it make sense to build condominiums and new retail space in this economic climate?

4. What is the liability to the city if we accept a proposal that is sufficiently financially unsound that the developer fails to get financing and the project is halted at inception or midway?  Note the fate of a project from an earlier RFP,  Ann Arbor City Apartments.  After passing through all the hoops, it has joined the list of downtown projects that didn’t get built.  What has been the cost to the city of that project?

This last concern is a big one.  The city does not have a good record on public-private ventures where we hoped to make money from our property and/or achieve some special objectives.  The purchase of the old Y lot and the failure of the project awarded through RFP (we are now being sued by that developer),  the stalled RFP for 415 W. Washington, and the old, old failure of the Tally Hall project.   (See the brief history in the Ann Arbor Chronicle; this building project was a blight on the landscape for years.)  I hope that the Council and the committee save us from another one of these expensive, frustrating, and often ugly experiments. (I know, some people like Ashley Mews.)

Despite the unhappy beginning of this particular episode (secret unsolicited proposals), let’s all hope that we are now looking forward to a real public discussion.  A good start would be making the interviews public.  One nice thing about the 415 W. Washington RFP process was that the interviews and presentations were public.  We need to seek a true public consensus about the best outcome for this little parcel next to the library.  It can indeed potentially have an important influence on the evolution of that entire area of downtown.  Let’s hope it can be something we all (mostly) agree on.

Note: see also the AnnArbor.com story on this subject.

UPDATE: CM Smith has objected to my frequent references to the January 23 meeting as a violation of the Open Meetings Act.  She explained that city staff generally posts such meetings on a piece of paper in the City Hall (and there is no record of these postings in general), and that in any event she was the only councilmember present, in a meeting with Roger Fraser.  Consider this a retraction of that allegation.

Categories: civic finance

Comments: 6 Comments

The Upset that Wasn’t and the Ann Arbor Election Schedule

November 11, 2009

“All this has happened before and it will all happen again.”  §  In a sense that applies to political campaigns, and yet it is also true that each one is unique.  The recent 4th Ward Ann Arbor city council race (ending with the election of November 2009) was unusual in many ways. It also brought up an old debate about the Ann Arbor election schedule and its effect on how representative these elections are.

higginselhady2
Marcia Higgins and Hatim Elhady at a Ward 4 candidate forum. Photo by the Ann Arbor Chronicle

As we previewed in an earlier post, the contest was between Marcia Higgins, a 10-year veteran and a Republican turned Democrat, and Hatim Elhady, a 23-year-old UM student (graduating this December) running as an Independent.

In the ordinary course of things, this should not even have been a contest.   Incumbency and experience should count for something, and usually do. She is a familiar member of the community.  Further, Higgins has apparently been a diligent council member, a member of key committees who often asked pointed questions of staff at council meetings.  But Higgins was the target of a lot of complaints about being “missing in action” “a zero”, and similar complaints about lack of constituent support, especially on Arbor Update. Further, she is one of the Council Party, the council majority faction who took some damage in August. And she faced an energetic and personable opponent who had a strong support base.

Higgins ran afoul of her constituents on several fronts.  She voted for the 42 North development though the South Maple neighborhood considered it out of scale and damaging to neighborhood integrity; after the original PUD was voted down by council, council approved a “by-right” site plan in spite of arguments by the neighborhood that it was not really in compliance.  Though the development is apparently not going through at this time, the approved site plan presents a risk.  Jack Eaton, a neighborhood activist, says, “The property where 42 North was to be built is still for sale. It is my understanding that the developer did not exercise the option to buy the property. The currently pending proposal to change the Area Height and Placement zoning regulations would allow an even more extreme project to be built on that site. The amendments would allow taller buildings to be erected on that property. If a development included under-building parking…, a new 42 North project could include more buildings on the same property….”  Accordingly, the South Maple Neighborhood Group endorsed Elhady.

Perhaps the most glaring problem for Higgins was the criticism that she and her fellow council member Margie Teall have taken for the city’s inaction on the Stadium Bridge.  The bridge (photos here) began to deteriorate visibly this last year after years of delay (an extensive consultant’s report is here). According to a February 2008 memo,  the city staff identified serious problems with the bridge in 2007, but  “We have not able to move forward on the preliminary design of the bridge over S. State Street or the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks because we are waiting for the 4th Ward City Council members to nominate and confirm a Citizens Advisory Committee to assist us with the public engagement process.” The delay meant that no “shovel-ready” plans were available when the federal stimulus money was made available, and the city did not apply for funding from that program.  The bridge is now truly scary to drive over or under.  It has become a symbol of mismanagement by a Council Party that has voted to build an expensive police-courts building while cutting services – and neglecting this vital piece of infrastructure.

In spite of all these negatives, she won by slightly less than 2 to 1. So what happened?  Did Higgins’ base of support reach farther than it first appeared?  Or did she outcampaign Elhady?

Looking at the results precinct by precinct is somewhat instructive.  Elhady won in his home precinct, #2, which is largely inhabited by students. But although Elhady was endorsed by the Michigan Daily, the other predominantly student precinct, #1, actually went for Higgins.  The total numbers of votes in the two precincts were low.  Elhady did relatively well in Precinct 7, the focus of unhappiness with Higgin’s lack of support on the 42 North development, and with absentee voters, but even there his percentages were lower than Higgins’.  Higgins did well in her home precinct (#4) and the adjacent #8 (counted together), as well as in the near-Burns Park precincts, #3 and #5 – and those were where the votes were. (Results from the Washtenaw County election reports.)

Precinct Higgins Elhady Write-in % Elhady % Higgins
1 21 12 1 35.29% 61.76%
2 17 25 0 59.52% 40.48%
3 191 69 1 26.44% 73.18%
4 & 8 450 201 6 30.59% 68.49%
5 193 86 7 30.07% 67.48%
6 315 161 6 33.40% 65.35%
7 361 301 2 45.33% 54.37%
9 347 233 5 39.83% 59.32%
AVCB 288 211 5 41.87% 57.14%
Totals 2183 1299 33 36.96% 62.11%

On the whole, it was a dignified campaign, and one in which Higgins was mostly missing in action (this was eventually explained as due to her need to attend to a desperately ill adult daughter). Although a headline on AnnArbor.com referred to the email scandal and Elhady was quoted in that story as saying the emails were “immature” and “inexcusable”, his campaign literature and the video interview in the same story make no mention of it. In that interview and in the story about League of Women Voters debate which Higgins was not able to attend, he emphasized instead his views of fiscal management and being open and accessible to constituents, as well as straight governance issues like the Stadium bridge.  At a Fourth Ward candidate forum, the Ann Arbor Chronicle’s account of the discussion has Elhady merely stating that he supported the recently defeated resolution to make the emails accessible. And indeed, although Higgins participated in some of the infamous email exchanges, she did not seem to engage in the nastiness displayed by some others.  Probably the most fire in the campaign was generated by the fuss over a strategic decision by Elhady’s campaign not to give an in-person interview to a former Ann Arbor News reporter, which resulted in a good deal of criticism on the Ann Arbor Chronicle’s resultant column and its commenters.  Still, in videotaped interviews elsewhere, he gave a good account of himself, and his final advertisement was earnest in tone, and carried some fine endorsements.  The greatest flaw in his campaign may have been a matter of timing; he chose early on to run as an Independent in the November general election, rather than in the August primary, when the Council Party suffered its defeats.

Elhady made a game effort to explain this decision on the Other Perspectives CTN television series, but his reasoning didn’t ring true.  Though he cited at various times a wish to appear independent and not subject to partisan pressures, it is clear that he was pursuing a student vote strategy.  In doing so, he was participating in the long-running debate about Ann Arbor’s electoral system.  Over many decades, there have been arguments about how our city council elections can be most fair and representative, and various factions have not hesitated to change the system to their advantage when possible.  Recently, UM students in particular have complained that the fact that most decisions are now being made in the August primaries has disenfranchised them.  Elhady apparently took this to heart. One of his early positions was to support institution of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting).  The way this works is that, in an election with more than two candidates,  voters express first, second, etc. preference for a candidate.  If no candidate gets a majority of the votes, votes from the candidate with the least votes are redistributed based on the second preference of those voters. Of course, this makes sense only when there are more than two candidates on the ballot, and it would replace partisan primaries.  Larry Kestenbaum, who is now the Washtenaw County Clerk, proposed using IRV in odd years only while retaining Ann Arbor’s partisan elections in a review of the history of our electoral system (2005).  His justification was that the odd-year primaries could be eliminated, and that would save money. Kestenbaum also said in an August 2009  Arbor Update thread that “From a public participation standpoint, making low-turnout odd-year August primaries the real decision point for city elections is a disaster” and suggested that moving all primaries to May would be an alternative to IRV voting.  But he also commented that the student participation in the August primaries was “non-negligible”.

IRV has most frequently been favored by third party groups, since it allows them to be present on the ballot and compete at least for the second preference of voters who might otherwise feel that they are “throwing their vote away”. The last big push was when Huron Valley Green Party raised the issue of IRV voting and attempted without success to get a measure on the ballot in 2004.  But Ann Arbor did once vote by IRV.  According to one account, Albert Wheeler was elected Mayor of Ann Arbor in 1975 on an IRV ballot. IRV was approved by voters in November 1974 after Republican James Stephenson won with less than a majority of the vote because Human Rights Party and Democratic Party candidates split the remainder of the vote.  Wheeler, the Democratic candidate,  actually came in second on first-preference voting, but when votes for Human Rights Party candidate Carol Ernst were redistributed according to second preference, won by 121 votes out of 29, 501.   This was challenged by Stephenson, but was upheld.  Republicans then organized a petition drive and IRV voting was abolished in an April 1976 election.

But Ann Arbor’s election schedule was altered more recently.  Traditionally, City Council elections were held in April, and elections for higher office in November.  This was thought to favor Republicans, since these elections typically had a low turn-out and long-term voters were predominantly Republican.  (I remember helping with some of these campaigns in which we were obliged to slog through snow and mud in order to campaign from door to door. )  But Tom Wieder and Dave DeVarti, both still active partisan Democrats, and a UM student (John Pollack) organized a citizen petition drive in 1992 to move the city elections to November.  Wieder recalls that they circulated petitions during the March 1992 Democratic Presidential primary and successfully got the measure, called VINE (Voter Initiative for a November Election) on the November 1992 ballot, where he remembers that it passed with 58% of the vote.  The Democratic ward organizations (which still could put on a field campaign) carried brochures to doors all over the city.  (As the ward chair,  I helped organize the Second Ward to carry literature, helping to elect Bill Clinton as well as pass VINE.) The first November city council elections were held in 1993;  there is no mention of a primary election in August 1993 in council minutes.  As we have noted earlier,  the August primary is now when the major contests are being held.

The “off-year” elections (held in odd-numbered years) are often decided by relatively small numbers of voters.  This has been an advantage to challengers.  Since only informed and motivated voters are likely to turn out in a odd-year August primary, the key for any candidate is to reach his or her voters and get them out.  In elections with a larger turnout, the candidate’s job is different; it is necessary to convince the broad population of voters, many of whom may not be paying much attention to a local race.  This happened with the November 2009 election, when the WISD millage was on the ballot.  It is instructive to note that Elhady’s margin of  loss  was lower on absentee ballots than in most precincts (his campaign sent out letters to absentee voters).  His strong campaign was doubtless overwhelmed by the many voters who simply voted for the experienced incumbent and long-term community member without having followed every moment of the campaign.

Much of the recent impetus toward some change in election schedules has been the perceived need to include students. Elhady was clearly gambling that student turnout really could make a difference in a November election.  Students presumably would not have been motivated by the millage vote but might be induced to turn out to elect a fellow student.  The Michigan Daily did endorse Elhady, and he conducted a vigorous student campaign (pizza and registration drives) in addition to his campaign aimed at residents.  But in the end, the student precinct 4-1 did not even give him a majority of its few votes.  The Independent label may have hurt him; there was criticism and puzzlement expressed about this issue on Arbor Update. (Post-election, Elhady admits that he will now be active in local Democratic party races.)

So, for better or worse, it looks as though the August primary is still going to be the important contest.  Unless we follow Kestenbaum’s thinking: “These days, I am leaning reluctantly toward nonpartisan city council elections rather than IRV.  That would move the main decision point to November without requiring special arrangements or changes to election procedures.”  Wieder, who has opposed non-partisan elections in the past, says he would now have less objection.  But would that ensure greater student participation? “The students aren’t going to vote in an odd year local election.  In the even years you would have a greater participation by students but it would be hard to get much traction or visibility on local candidates.”

Would Higgins have met the same fate that Leigh Greden did if Elhady had run against her in the Democratic primary instead?  We’ll never know.  But he gave the hypothesis of the need for more student participation in local elections a fair test.  Not that it will keep the subject from coming up again.

§ Yes, I liked Battlestar Galactica too but the recurrent history theme is not original with it.

Categories: politics, Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment