A

s a student at the University of 
Michigan over the past year, I 
have come to love the natural 
beauty of the Ann Arbor region, whether 
it be the scenic Huron River winding 
through the Washtenaw County coun-
tryside, large expanses of open space 
or picturesque farms dotting the land-
scape. Unlike many other cities similar 
in size — along with most areas of Metro 
Detroit — Ann Arbor’s close proximity 
to the countryside in nearly all direc-
tions makes this city a rarity in south-
eastern Michigan. In only a couple 
of miles, you can easily travel from 
a dense, urban atmosphere to wide, 
open fields that give you a longing for 
Northern Michigan’s landscape, only a 
half hour from Metro Detroit.
These precious lands surrounding 
Ann Arbor don’t exist today by accident. 
For nearly two decades, the city of Ann 
Arbor has led a valuable effort aimed 
at preserving the “Greenbelt” around 
the city limits in order to protect natu-
ral resources, the Huron River water-
shed and farmland. This effort began 
in November 2003, when Ann Arbor 
voters approved the Open Space and 
Parkland Preservation Millage, also 
known as the Greenbelt Millage. 
Since then, Ann Arbor has protected 
over 6,100 acres of land within the 
boundaries of the Greenbelt Dis-
trict, in partnership with Washtenaw 
County and surrounding townships.
Far beyond simply preserving the 
rural character of the Ann Arbor region 
for decades to come, the Greenbelt Mill-
age — which is a 30-year, 0.5 mil tax levy 
based on assessed value — has a wide 
range of benefits, as Remy Long, man-
ager of the Greenbelt Program for the 
city of Ann Arbor, discusses in a video 
posted on the Ann Arbor website. 
According to Long, “dollars and 
acres” are only one way to understand 
the far-reaching benefits of the Green-
belt effort. By preserving dozens of 
farms, one of the most powerful impacts 
of the Greenbelt is increased food securi-
ty and a greater supply of locally-grown 
produce for residents in and around Ann 
Arbor to enjoy. The Greenbelt program, 
as Long explains, also makes it easier 
for new farmers to purchase land by 
removing the development rights, which 
lowers the land value and makes it more 
affordable. “Affordable land access is the 
number one barrier to starting a success-
ful farm operation,” Long explains. “If 
we’ve removed those development 
rights from the equation and made it 
more affordable for beginning farm-
ers to access, we are helping pro-
mote a new generation of farmers.” 
In the nearly two decades that have 
passed since Ann Arbor residents 
approved the Greenbelt Millage, thou-

sands of acres of farmland and natural 
areas have been successfully protected. 
According to an MLive report from 2014, 
the largest property preserved by the 
program is a 286-acre property in Ann 
Arbor Township, north of Ann Arbor. 
Taking second and third place are cur-
rently a 265-acre property in Webster 
Township and a 218-acre property in 
Salem Township, respectively. In the 
first 15 years of the Greenbelt Program, 
more than 5,700 acres of wooded 
areas, wetland, prairie and farmland 
have been permanently preserved. 
Many community members and offi-
cials agree that the Greenbelt program 
is so important because it protects the 
natural, undeveloped areas surrounding 
Ann Arbor from urban sprawl. Urban 
sprawl leads to a number of problems, 
according to Encyclopedia Britannica, 
including “increased energy use, pol-
lution, and traffic congestion and a 
decline in community distinctiveness 
and cohesiveness.” Without the Green-
belt initiative, many feel that the areas 
of Washtenaw County surrounding Ann 
Arbor would begin to look more like the 
suburbs of Metro Detroit, with miles of 
never-ending strip malls and subdivi-
sions. As a result of the millage, “So much 
beautiful property has been protected, 
and there’s also funding to protect more, 
so Washtenaw County is never going to 
turn into Oakland County. There’s going 
to be viable agriculture and there’s 
going to be close-by natural areas for 
people to enjoy,” according to Dan Eze-
kiel, former chairman of Ann Arbor’s 
Greenbelt Advisory Commission.
While a majority of voters approved 
the Greenbelt Millage in 2003 and the 
program has proven to show clear ben-
efits for the Ann Arbor community, the 
Greenbelt does have critics. One common 
concern amongst residents is that the 
Greenbelt isn’t the best use of the tax rev-
enue the city of Ann Arbor takes in, espe-
cially since most of the Greenbelt District 
is outside of the city limits. While I am not 
a taxpayer in Ann Arbor and I understand 
these concerns, I believe that the benefits 
of this program for the entire Ann Arbor 
region as a whole far outweigh the costs. 
Not only does the Greenbelt safeguard 
natural resources and improve food secu-
rity, but by protecting natural beauty and 
open areas, I feel this program is also 
beneficial for things like mental health. 
According to research discussed by Har-
vard University, there is “a strong con-
nection between time spent in nature and 
reduced stress, anxiety, and depression.”

5

Thursday, July 30, 2020
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
5
OP
OPINION
ON

Ann Arbor invests in its future

EVAN STERN | COLUMNIST

Evan Stern can be reached at 

erstern@umich.edu.

KEITH JOHNSTONE | COLUMNIST

“

If you can sit down with a fam-
ily and see your own family in 
them … then you’re going to 
work hard for them.” — Barack Obama
With arch-conservative and beer 
rights 
activist 
Brett 
Kavanaugh 
replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, 
this Supreme Court term appeared 
bleak at best for liberals. LGBTQ+ 
rights, DACA, Trump’s taxes, reli-
gious freedom, abortion, Affordable 
Care Act and gun control were all on 
the docket this term, so most liberals’ 
expectations ranged from dismal to 
apocalyptic. However, the crisis was 
averted, for now, as the four Demo-
cratic appointees found an unlikely 
ally in many cases: the umpire him-
self, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. 
This term, Roberts sided with the 
liberal justices on an array of cases 
ranging from one opposing the admin-
istration’s cavalier behavior with dis-
mantling the DACA program to one 
protecting a woman’s right to choose 
— for now. However, a deeper look into 
this surprising term exposes a startling 
and revelatory look into the philosophy 
of Roberts and his political games-
manship. See, while Roberts has been 
reviled by conservatives as a “secret 
liberal” and praised by liberals as an 
“institutionalist,” this public persona 
is a façade to cover partisanship by 
manipulating the odd relationship the 
Supreme Court has with media, the 
public and his own colleagues, and 
we cannot allow him to fool us.
Famously, when describing his judi-
cial philosophy during his confirma-
tion hearings, analogizing judges to 
baseball umpires, Roberts said, “It’s my 
job to call balls and strikes, and not to 
pitch or bat.” This bought him the sup-
port of 78 out of 100 senators, with nays 
on Roberts’ confirmation belonging to 
then-Senators Barack Obama, D-Ill., 
Joe Biden, D-Del., and Ted Kennedy, 
D-Mass., along with 19 other votes. 
Once Roberts replaced his old 
boss — noted segregationist Wil-
liam Rehnquist — as Chief Justice, he 
attempted to maintain a low profile, 
developing close relationships with his 
colleagues and cultivating a reputation 
for warmth, wit and good humor. This 
reputation for congeniality made Rob-
erts a darling of the media, which lent 
the chief both credibility and goodwill. 
However, the trait the media did not 
give Roberts enough credit for was 
his savvy. See, one of the main pow-
ers of the chief justice is to assign the 
majority opinions if he or she is on the 
winning side, so Roberts has sought to 
deflect the media criticism onto other 
justices in major rulings like D.C. v. 
Heller (2008), which held that the 
second amendment guarantees the 

right to firearms. While the case 
drew the ire of the left, most was 
directed toward Antonin Scalia — 
who I would normally make a joke 
about, but it’s just too easy.
As Roberts became more expe-
rienced, he began employing more 
overtly political tactics. For example, 
in National Federation of Independent 
Business v. Sebellius (2012), Roberts 
had the opportunity to deal a death-
blow to Obamacare, but he sided with 
liberals, concluding that the law’s 
controversial 
individual 
mandate 
was constitutional, which became 
the headline. However, the decision’s 
arguably more consequential prec-
edent was his conclusion that the 
law’s mandatory Medicaid expansion 
was unconstitutional, which deprived 
millions of people across the country, 
especially in red states, of access to 
health care. Further, the logic of his 
precedent could be applied to many 
liberal priorities at the federal level in 
the future concerning everything from 
clean energy to free college.
While Roberts’ media manipula-
tion and political savvy are signifi-
cant, they are usually overcome by 
two things: religion and racism. These 
are weak spots in Roberts’ arsenal, as, 
since he is a wealthy white Catholic 
man, he has never had to consider the 
issues of race or imposition of religion 
in his daily life, so he simply cannot 
relate. Therefore, he is completely 
tone-deaf to these issues, which has 
never been more apparent than in his 
majority opinion in Shelby County v. 
Holder (2013) — one of the worst deci-
sions in the Supreme Court’s history. 
I could describe the gross incompe-
tence expressed by one of the most 
powerful men in this country, but, 
honestly, his reiteration from a 
2009 opinion does it best: 
“Things have changed in the South. 
Voter turnout and registration rates 
now approach parity. Blatantly dis-
criminatory evasions of federal decrees 
are rare. And minority candidates hold 
office at unprecedented levels.” 
If you don’t speak conservative 
nonsense, I can gladly translate. 
Essentially Roberts is patting 
himself and white people in the 
South on the back saying, “Con-
grats guys, we did it. Racism is 
no more,” which is just about the 
most ridiculous — and statutorily 
illogical — point that I have ever 
read. Needless to say, this deci-
sion, which gutted Sections 4 
and 5 of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, led to a wave of laws 
targeted at decreasing minority 
voter turnout across the coun-
try, especially in the South.

With the notable exceptions of 
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which 
legalized gay marriage across the 
country, and Whole Women’s Health 
v. Hellersteadt (2016), which acts to 
maintain protections for a woman’s 
right to choose, the Supreme Court 
tacked conservative in most every con-
sequential case after 2010. While these 
small, steady wins satisfied most legal 
conservatives, the evangelical base 
hungered for further victories. More-
over, many Democrats in the Senate
and on the campaign trail began advo-
cating for altering the structure of the 
Supreme Court. This national cli-
mate set the stage for the term in 
2020 with Roberts, who is a bona
fide conservative, at the center of 
the court and several consequen-
tial cases facing the justices.
This term, Roberts’s cunning was 
on full display in several cases, but the 
pinnacle of his strategic prowess was 
on the issue of LGBTQ+ rights. In Bos-
tock v. Clayton County (2020), despite 
the chief voting against gay rights in 
Obergefell and other previous deci-
sions, he provided his vote to pad the 
6-3 majority. This vote secured the 
ability of conservative Neil Gorsuch 
to write the narrow majority opin-
ion rather than allowing one of the 
court’s liberals to author an expansive 
one. Then, in a much lower profile 
case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. 
Morrissey-Berru (2020), Roberts com-
missioned conservative Samuel Alito 
— who spent most of the term writing 
whiny dissents making me question 
his devotion to the rule of law and 
overall sanity — to write the opinion 
allowing LGBTQ+ individuals to be 
fired by religious organizations due 
to the ministerial exception. Thus, 
he and the conservatives dealt a vic-
tory to liberals, but they strategically 
undermined it at every turn, which 
is the same pattern that every liberal 
“win” this term has followed.
This term, Roberts has played 
political games while still making 
time to disenfranchise minority vot-
ers and help reintegrate religion into 
public life. Despite this, many politi-
cal pundits who either lack expertise 
about the court or are too optimistic 
to view objective facts as such believe 
that this term marks a pivotal change 
of heart for Justice Roberts. Spoiler 
alert: It doesn’t. Any analysis scratch-
ing even slightly below the surface 
of these opinions conveys Roberts’ 
true motivation, which is to save face 
for the court at all costs, even if that 
means losing in the short term.

Dear liberals, John Roberts isn’t our friend

Keith Johnstone can be reached at 

keithja@umich.edu.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

