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.”