4E — Fall 2018
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Council approves new 
code for Greek housing

At the Monday meeting, 
the Ann Arbor City Council 
approved changes to the 
zoning 
code 
for 
Greek 
life houses and moved to 
postpone the approval of a 
new development plan for 
the northern part of the city. 
City 
Council 
voted 
unanimously 
to 
approve 
new zoning for fraternity 
and sorority houses, which 
modifies 
the 
definition 
of 
“fraternity” 
and 
“sorority” and requires the 
organizations 
to 
affiliate 
themselves 
with 
the 
University or another higher 
education institution.
Mayor Christopher Taylor 
commented 
the 
changes 
will 
improve 
Greek 
life 
organizations’ interactions 
with Ann Arbor residents.
“Our goal is to more 
accurately 
increase 
the 
likelihood that fraternities 
and 
sororities 
are 
good 
neighbors 
to 
everyone,” 
Taylor said. “In many cases 
they 
are. 
Occasionally 
they are not. I think this 
ordinance change will give 
us the opportunity to do 
something about it in that 
minority case.”
Though the changes do 
not 
retroactively 
apply 
to 
existing 
Greek 
life 
organizations 
and 
the 
new 
zoning 
rules 
will 
only apply to new Greek 
life organizations seeking 
a 
permit 
or 
established 
organizations 
looking 
to 
expand, neighbors of Greek 
life houses as well as Greek 
life alumni came forward to 
discuss the proposal.
Anne Schreiber, an Ann 
Arbor resident whose house 
is surrounded by fraternity 
and sorority houses, was 
in support of the proposal, 
saying while some of the 
organization 
members 
are good neighbors, many 
fraternities 
in 
particular 
cause disturbances.
“There are an awful lot 
of people that are very 
unhappy 
with 
the 
way 
they (fraternities) behave,” 
Schreiber said. “They are 
unruly, 
they 
are 
noisy, 
they’re 
dirty 
— 
lots 
of 
garbage and papers and 
stuff. And I don’t think 
we should give them any 
more latitude. I think if 
anything we need to restrict 
them and give them some 
parameters. It seems like 
nobody can take ownership 
of the responsibility of their 
misbehavior.”
Peter 
Nagourney, 
the 
co-chair 
for 
the 
North 
Burns Park Association and 
neighbor to several Greek 
life 
houses, 
pointed 
out 
one neighboring residence 
housed a banned fraternity.
“You should know that 
one neighbor spent nine 
months constantly, and I 

mean daily, dealing with 
city, University police and 
Greek life entities before 
one of these party houses set 
up by members of a banned 
fraternity was shut down,” 
Nagourney said. “This is 
a real problem. Others in 
this 
neighborhood 
must 
constantly deal with trash, 
public drunkenness, loud 
music and other violations 
of city ordinances. Oversight 
of these groups is not done 
at the national level despite 
the claims of their attorneys. 
Oversight by the University 
and the Office of Greek Life 
does not seem to make much 
difference.”
Elizabeth Jove, a member 
of the house corporation 
that owns the Alpha Phi 
Sorority 
property 
and 
chapter 
adviser 
for 
the 
sorority, pushed the council 
to postpone the decision for 
approval, stressing a need 
for all voices involved to be 
heard.
“What 
we 
have 
here 
tonight 
is 
exactly 
the 
situation that will continue if 
council doesn’t let all parties 
sit and talk together because 
we’ve heard neighbors who 
have deeply held concerns 
and issues with the behavior 
of these properties, of the 
people who live on these 
properties,” 
Jove 
said. 
“This 
proposed 
zoning 
amendment is not going 
to address those issues. It 
doesn’t address trash and 
noise and parties. It doesn’t 
address the appearance of 
your properties.”
Nagourney 
disagreed, 
claiming 
Greek 
life 
organizations 
have 
previously 
not 
been 
forthcoming in responding 
to neighbors’ concerns.
“Hearing 
tonight’s 
sudden offers to work with 
the community are a joke,” 
Nagourney said. “In 20 years 
I have never heard from any 
organization about meeting 
or dealing with these issues. 
Never once. And my name’s 
been on the books for over 
20 years.”
In addition to the approval 
of the new housing code for 
fraternities and sororities, 
the council also discussed 
a new development plan 
for the Cottages at Barton 
Green.
The 
decision 
to 
postpone the new housing 
development 
by 
Trinitas 
Ventures, 
an 
Indiana 
student housing developer, 
was made following heavy 
protests 
from 
residents 
of the Pontiac Trail. The 
proposed 
development 
would range from the west 
side of Pontiac Trail and 
south of Dhu Varren Road 
and include 225 apartments 
with 716 bedrooms in 92 
buildings 
built 
on 
the 
vacant lot. Major concerns 
from 
residents 
and 
councilmembers 
included 

SONIA LEE
Daily Staff Reporter

Candidates debate policing, campaign contributions

Six candidates for Ann Arbor 
City Council and two candidates 
 
for mayor participated in a 
forum Thursday afternoon at 
the Ford School of Public Policy 
to discuss issues relevant to the 
primary election in August. 
More than 50 students and 
community members attended 
the forum, hosted by the 
Center for Local, State, and 
Urban Policy and moderated by 
members of a Public Policy class 
on local government taught by 
former Ann Arbor Mayor John 
Hieftje.
Among other things, the 
candidates discussed mental 
health 
resources, 
transit, 
protections for undocumented 
immigrants and policing. The 
controversy over the city’s 
possible repurchase of the 
Y Lot made its way into the 
conversation more than once, 
with candidates calling into 
question each other’s’ motives 
and the degree to which they 
were influenced by campaign 
contributions.
The 
mayoral 
candidates 
present were Councilmember 
Jack Eaton, D-Ward 4, and 
incumbent Mayor Chris Taylor. 
Other 
present 
incumbent 
councilmembers included Kirk 
Westphal, D-Ward 2; Julie 
Grand, D-Ward 3; Graydon 
Krapohl, 
D-Ward 
4; 
and 
Chuck Warpehoski, D-Ward 5. 
Joseph Hood, who is running 
for Council in Ward 4, and 
Ali Ramlawi, who is running 
for Council in Ward 5, also 
attended.
When 
asked 
about 
the 
influence 
of 
campaign 
contributions 
on 
decision 
making, 
the 
conversation 
quickly turned to the issue of 
the Y Lot. In 2013, the city sold 
the former site of the YMCA 
on Fifth Avenue to real estate 
developer Dennis Dahlmann. 
Stipulations in the contract 
stated if Dahlmann had not 
adequately 
developed 
the 

property for use within five 
years, the city had the option of 
repurchasing the property. Now 
five years later, the property 
has undergone no development 
while appreciating significantly 
in 
value, 
and 
several 
councilmembers have moved to 
repurchase it.
After 
failing 
to 
amass 
the eight votes required for 
repurchase in their April 2 
meeting, the council will vote 
again on the issue Monday. 
Several 
councilmembers 
in favor of the repurchase 
have accused Eaton of being 
influenced 
by 
Dahlmann’s 
campaign contributions after 
Easton 
voted 
against 
the 
repurchase. At the forum, Eaton 
said he had been criticized for 
accepting contributions from 
Dahlmann before, though the 
nature of the criticism was 
inconsistent.
“I would point out that when 
Dennis Dahlmann submitted 
the highest bid to purchase this 
property and some of us voted 
to accept the high bid, we were 
criticized for that vote because 
we had received contributions 
in the past from him,” he 
said. “So apparently anything 
that we do with regard to 
Mr. Dahlmann is subject to 
criticism, even if it makes 
complete rational sense.”
Eaton went on to point out 
the city had made previous 
attempts 
to 
develop 
the 
property 
with 
a 
separate 
developer, and when that deal 
fell 
through 
the 
developer 
sued the city, restricting any 
development on the property 
for the five-year duration of the 
lawsuit. Eaton said he voted 
against the repurchase to avoid 
lengthy litigation and instead 
come to a settlement with 
Dahlmann.
“We prevailed without any 
qualification, but it still took this 
property out of development for 
five years,” Eaton said. “Here we 
are again facing litigation that’s 
likely to take multiple years, 
and nothing will happen during 

that litigation, so I believe that 
we should be trying to work 
with that developer to come to 
a reasonable settlement rather 
than tying up this property and 
making it inactive for another 
two or more years.”
Grand, 
who 
voted 
for 
the repurchase, said Eaton 
was making the issue more 
complicated than it really was.
“In the past few weeks, 
there have been those who 
brought up history and they’re 
trying to make it seem more 
complicated than it is, and 
we have talked about a lot 
of complicated issues today. 
Transit, affordable housing — 
those are complicated issues,” 
she said. “This is a contract. 
This is a very simple contract 
that says, ’If you don’t do what 
you said you were going to do, 
we get to buy it back.’ And that’s 
what we’re trying to do.”
Ramlawi said the focus on 
Eaton was unfair, pointing out 
campaign contributions from 
people whose business dealings 
were 
affected 
by 
council 
decisions 
were 
relatively 
common.
“I think it’s unfair right now 
to be leveling that question 
at people who oppose the 
repurchase of the Y Lot right 
now 
because 
people 
have 
taken money from all sorts of 
people, and I think if you look 
at all these votes and look at 
who voted and who paid and 
contributed, I think it’s going to 
be really ugly and I don’t think 
it’s good for our body to be 
slinging mud,” he said. 
Taylor said donations “are a 
necessary part of a campaign,” 
but “they don’t form the basis of 
the decisions that we make or 
the positions that we take.”
“We each, I think, come to 
the council table with our own 
inherent views of how the city 
should be, our own desire to 
listen to our constituents and 
have that inform how we move 
forward,” he said.
The topic of police reform 
— the city recently approved 

a 
task 
force 
to 
provide 
recommendations 
to 
the 
council on the formation of 
a police review board — was 
also discussed by the mayoral 
candidates. Taylor said the 
process 
was 
“a 
place 
for 
members of the community 
and members of the police 
department to work together 
to understand what sort of 
policing we want in the city of 
Ann Arbor.”
“I expect them (the policing 
commission), 
importantly, 
to communicate to the chief, 
to 
communicate 
to 
(the) 
council and the public their 
assessment,” Taylor said. “Has 
the police department done 
a good job in reviewing our 
complaints?”
Eaton was more insistent on 
the process being independent 
of 
AAPD 
influence. 
The 
city’s hiring of an outside 
firm to audit the AAPD last 
summer 
frustrated 
many 
residents, 
who 
argued 
the 
review 
did 
not 
adequately 
seek input from marginalized 
community 
members. 
The 
firm’s 
controversial 
final 
recommendation 
suggested 
the police review board should 
not be able to conduct its own 
investigations.
“You cannot have police 
officers reviewing their own 
conduct. A review process has 
to be fully empowered — you 
can’t hobble the process by not 
giving full access, information, 
witnesses 
and 
videotape, 
whatever it be, to this group,” 
Eaton said. “I think that the 
basic 
distinction 
between 
camps on this particular issue 
is just how fully authorized 
and 
independent 
the 
final 
review board will be. My work 
with 
Transforming 
Justice 
Washtenaw has led me to 
believe that anything less than 
full authorization is just an 
action for appearances and not 
for actual change.”
Mayoral primaries will take 
place in August, with elections 
set for this November.

ANDREW HIYAMA
Daily News Editor

safety, increased parking and 
traffic, and an increase in 
undergraduates that would 
result in noise and littering 
problems.
“My main issue is with 
safety,” Jan Adams Watson, 
a resident near the proposed 
development 
site, 
said. 
“Ann Arbor is trying to be 
a 
walkable 
city. 
Adding 
unnecessary new traffic will 
make this more difficult. We 
already have speed problems 
and frequent accidents. I 
call the police frequently 
for traffic accidents on my 
corner.”
Ann 
Arbor 
resident 
Rebecca Aarons commented 
one of the major concerns 
from 
neighbors 
was 
the 
proposed 
influx 
of 
undergraduate 
students, 
bringing parties, noise and 
violations with them into the 
quiet residential area.
“My main concern is the 
negative social impact of 

this development,” Aarons 
said. “We are in the midst of 
two changing social trends. 
The increased use of not-
quite-yet legalized but more 
potent than ever marijuana 
… to the #MeToo movement, 
as a necessary upheaval in 
how mostly younger people, 
like our proposed neighbors, 
interact in consenting and 
respectful 
ways. 
These 
social evolutions are best 
played out in a much more 
supportive 
and 
local 
to 
the 
campus 
environment. 
Not the proposed isolated 
community away from U 
of M medical staff, law 
enforcement, U of M crisis 
counselors, et cetera.”
Resident Ed Gosem agreed 
the 
marketing 
toward 
undergraduate students is 
his main issue with Trinitas’s 
proposal, 
suggesting 
the 
housing be built to serve a 
wider range of residents.
“Try to attract additional 

groups of people,” Gosem 
said. “Low-income people 
needing affordable housing, 
working people, seniors. If 
these student-focused units 
fail, they’re just going to have 
to be ripped out and replaced 
with units that can serve 
a more diverse population. 
Why 
experiment? 
What’s 
wrong with doing things 
right the first time? This 
is too good a property to 
waste.”
Timothy 
Stoker, 
a 
representative for Trinitas, 
defended the development 
plan.
“We 
meet 
all 
the 
requirements,” Stoker said. 
“We’ve 
responded 
to 
all 
of the issues the planning 
committee 
has 
raised 
at 
their public hearing and we 
believe that our client has 
done its utmost to bring a 
project to the city of Ann 
Arbor 
that 
meets 
every 
aspect both in spirit and 

with the actual requirements 
of the code.”
The 
council 
voted 
to 
postpone approval of the 
project plan to September. 
Councilmember 
Sumi 
Kailasapathy, D-Ward 1, was 
skeptical that the short time 
frame would be enough to 
make drastic changes to the 
plan in order to satisfy both 
developers and residents.
“I 
think 
there’s 
a 
fundamental flaw in this 
project,” Kailasapathy said. 
“And I’m not sure how that’s 
going to be fixed in two 
months, I’ll be very honest.”
Adams pushed the council 
to prioritize the desires of its 
constituents.
“It is time for City Council 
to put the needs of residents 
ahead 
of 
the 
needs 
of 
developers,” 
Watson 
said. 
“We live in the city, we pay 
taxes, we vote and you need 
to listen to us. Don’t listen to 
the developers.”

