“these properties are unkempt and frayed . . . in poor physical condition . . . . This area of North Main has become increasingly blighted over the past 30 years…"
I know that Mr. and Mrs. Cannon, who owned the house behind me on Main when I moved here, would have been angry to hear the developers suggest they neglected their carefully-tended home. So would Nina Gelman, who remodeled both the Cannons' house and the one next door to the north, and Joyce and her husband, whose home to the south I could only envy--it was better built and better kept than my own house on Fourth.
As a neighbor, I saw only positive changes for the first twenty-five years I lived next to this block of Main Street. In addition to many instances of good stewardship and remodeling, I saw several dramatic improvements: a historic home from Lower Town was towed down Beakes Street to replace an abandoned gas station, and a battered shelter beside North Main Park returned to single-family use.
Social services also found a permanent place: it was during this same period that Avalon Housing bought two houses on the block. Today Avalon operates one as "supportive housing" and rents the other to Dawn Farm.
So where's the "blight"? Unfortunately, it's all to easy to find: five years ago, the 3 Oaks Group bought the houses at the north end of this block on speculation, with the intention of demolishing them. They have since chosen to let most of the houses go vacant. Last year, they boarded up three of them.
In their presentations, the developers always point out that drivers arriving on North Main Street get a bad first impression of Ann Arbor. Well--no kidding. Their own boarded-up houses and the party store next door (which belongs to their prospective tenant) do indeed give a bad impression. But it's one that's entirely within the developers' control.
If the developers really cared about the city's image, they could improve it overnight by repairing these houses and allowing people to live in them again. Evidently they feel they've got more to gain by creating the false image of a "blighted" neighborhood.
Well said. I live directly behind this "blight" too. Before 3 Oaks bought these properties, the "blight" I saw looking out my kitchen window included a beautiful flower garden with a perfectly tended lawn, and a daycare play area, with toddlers riding their big wheels.
ReplyDeleteThe developers have also called these lots a "brownfield", which is 100% false. Its clear they have no respect for this neighborhood or it's current residents. They also seem to have no respect for the truth.
It is highly ironic that the developers would cite "blight" as a reason in support of their project -- they have purposely caused the blight to advance the cause of their development. No need to put money into properties that you plan to demolish, that eats into money you can put toward your development. Never mind the effect on the surrounding neighborhood. This is not only the height of irony, it's also the essence of hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteApart from the substantive issues for opposing the projects, there's one of fairness. The City should not reward developers who lie about the benefits of their project. As we say in the law, these developers have 'unclean hands'.
Carol Shepherd, Attorney
Arborlaw PLC
Beakes Street