Ann Arbor's "Drinking Problem": A Possible Diagnosis

[_earthshine_]

I'm writing a rare public post in the hopes that it might get some attention from the larger audience of folks interested in analyzing and shaping the downtown and campus areas of Ann Arbor. At the very least, it might kick off some discussions about the nature of the issues at hand.

My post is inspired by a recent article pertaining to the

Comments

[_earthshine_]

You bring up a good point here that may explain part of why things have changed: a changing demographic at the U on the whole. I could certainly believe this, and i think it might sway populations in the directions that make it harder for grass-roots movements to catch the attention of the average student. Also, it further props up the inflated local economy that makes many other types of local businesses infeasible in the downtown/campus area.

I would still hope, though, that even admist that skewed population, you would find your movers/shakers willing to take a lead and help shape the community. The difference that may be in play now, however, is how much of an uphill battle it might be to get the rest of the population on board with more creative options, and how much of a sacrifice the local businesses and residents would have to make to force improvement to the community. As you said, it also requires them taking the time to coordinate, but hopefully an initiative like A2C3 would force that issue, and make community participation part of "the cost of doing business" in this priviledged market.

Fascinating discussion here, thanks for starting this...

Thank you for contributing, as well, as i've now got yet more angles on it to consider and think about. If you feel it's worth spreading the ideas that are here, pls do spread the word.

[puggleville]

Thomas Friedman wrote an interesting book called "The Lexus and the Olive Branch". The book focuses on the topic of globalization, but one of the author's theories is that no two countries that have a McDonald's will fight in a government-versus-government war against each other. Obviously this does not include the acts of non-government-sanctioned groups (or ones that are publically so...) or conflicts, etc. His premise is that (American) capitalism distracts the general populations of the two countries enough that they are not motivated to support nationalistic aggression/imperialism for fear of losing their conduit into capitalism. Not willing to give up their Nikes, so to speak. From a cynical perspective, I see Ann Arbor, and UM specifically, as a possible micro-cosm of this theory...there is an increase in the number of American people that are prioritizing their own personal material needs over supporting things that provide a societal/community good or that help others more than themselves. Can this change? Yes, but are people willing to make sacrifices of time and money?

[_earthshine_]

Interesting theory... hadn't seen that one before.

I think that we're at an interesting time in American history because we're at the crossroads of some sideswiping forces. I think one is the very "me first" mentality that seems to be out there right now, but the other is that a few social issues seem to be coming to head that force people to start to think more globally (global warming and the increasing "political cost" of oil come to mind).

As much as i'd like to believe that we can gradually usher in a world where a greater and greater number of people become socially/globally aware and responsible, i also realize that we need to take alternative measure to "get things done" in the meanwhile. This task generally falls to the few who are willing to dedicate their lives to those causes (be they global or local) that benefit the whole over just themselves.

With respect to this latter task, the art always seems to be in trying to spin the system so that the bulk of folks -- who are not maligned but simply will do the cheapest/easiest thing 9 times out of 10 -- will naturally find their way into doing those socially beneficial things just out of their normal courses of action. This is tricky, of course, because economic and political systems evolve -- as all organisms do -- to perpetuate themselves, and so those few who benefit the most from the current status quo are those with the most resources and are also those who might be inclined to keep things as they are.

If there's any place to see this in microcosmic form, you're right that Ann Arbor might be it. Ann Arbor has a population of spirited "change-the-world" types in it, and solid remnants of a local culture that encourages that kind of activism. On the flip side, though, as you pointed out, that economic "me first" culture that benefits from the status quo is also powerfully represented -- from perhaps the student level to the professional class to the business owners to the politically-wired property tycoons -- and just as ready to take action for their own causes.

What's interesting to me is that A2C3 seems like they could potentially fall into either or both of these categories. Are they movers and shakers interested in revolutionizing the City? Are they just a bunch of representatives of the status quo not willing to make the sacrifices that need to be made for the common good? ...or could they be the beginnings of a movement that will bring both sets of interests to the table and give birth to a new, unified A²/UM community culture? I suppose time will tell...