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.”