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

[mrgeddylee]

It's sort of orthagonal to your point, but I think we need to dissolve the city of Ann Arbor as such and have it governed directly by the state. The U's sprawling untaxable bulk permanenly distorts the city economy, requiring ridiculous financial policies to make up for the difficulty in finding tax revenue. It's time to punt on the entire problem.

[_earthshine_]

That's an interesting correlary... i have to think about that one a bit. I guess i don't know enough about the City's tax base and financial challenges to speak to that, but my first gut reaction is to think that the massive funnel of money that the U dumps into the local economy has got to offset that problem to a fair degree. If nothing else, the State could legislate requirements for the U (beyond those already in place) to "put back into the City" in some measureable way to make up for the tax base that it cannot raise because of the U's large use of space.

[hmasing]

Short version:

Every square inch of university owned property is off the Ann Arbor tax rolls. Every time the university buys a building in the city (and they are buying many), the city loses tax revenue. Who picks that up?

Me. As an Ann Arbor homeowner, I have the distinct privilege of having a $10K/year city tax bill.

I also get hosed by being a business owner, since I have the distinct privilege of paying city tax there as well. The difference? My business doesn't get to vote, so we have pure taxation without representation.

[_earthshine_]

Yeah, man... that's a rough scene on both counts.

Some would say, though, that what you're paying for is -- again, on both counts -- the location. You and your family get more direct access to A²'s neighborhoods, schools and resources, and your business gets direct access to the resilient N-sigma local economy... all of which are, directly or indirectly, products of the same massive University presence that lowers the tax base to begin with. If you could've set up your house and shop in, say, Manchester (which just saw a 6+% drop in property tax assessment this year; reason: "market adjustment"), would you have? My guess is "not".

Now, whether or not "you get what you pay for" by paying A²'s astronomical taxes is always a judgement call. For some, it's probably well worth it, and for others, not so much. For you? Only you can say...

[_earthshine_]

t almost seems that the people moving in nowadays would rather the University pack up and go somewhere else, forgetting completely that the U is what made AA what it is.

I think this is a great succint way of saying a lot of what i'm getting at. Again, i'm not calling anyone "evil" here... but perhaps it's unfair -- or at least very unfortunate -- that the downtown area's economic growth has largely ushered in a population that perhaps feels this way. ...or at least a population that wants the University's presence to be handled on their terms.

[kestenbaum]

I think you and I value about the same things here. I am pro-music and have actively pushed student participation in local government (in East Lansing, Detroit, Ithaca, and Ann Arbor), but I disagree with your analysis.

I mean, I never heard about the Lonely Hearts Club, and I'm not exactly a habitué of alternative music concerts, but I strongly agree that more and better live music venues would be a great thing for Ann Arbor. And yeah, that would enhance Ann Arbor's national prominence and make it a better place to live -- for some people.The reason all this has not happened, as obvious a course as it might seem to you or me, is that, I'm guessing at numbers here, some 90% of the population is pretty much indifferent to music. Oh, they might put pop tunes on their iPod or something, but they'd never go out of their way to pay money for a live concert

(1 of 2)

[_earthshine_]

First off, thank you for reading, and for this very thoughtful response. You bring up a lot of good points here that (it sounds like) have come from some personal experience. :)

Yes, as much as folks like us might wish it were otherwise, you're right about the music factor -- most people (sadly) don't care about live music vs canned. This can perhaps be blamed on our mass-media-dominated-spoonfed-art society... but that's a sociopolitical rant for another time. :) I think, though, that live music serves as just one example of the kinds of ways that (a) we could allow the U-cultural population to be more directly involved in what shapes the community, and (b) we could encourage new types of "drinking culture", as A2C3 suggests we ought

(2 of 2)

[_earthshine_]

[comment cont'd due to space limit -- apologies for my lack of brevity!]

My question is this: what happens if the businesses and social scenes in the downtown-campus area -- the truly public places where folks can go to "see and be seen" -- are dominated by more cultural activities that involve alcohol but aren't simply body-packed watering holes? What if the U and City could foster an environment that absolutely empowers the Z% group, and gives them the effective resouces and "social/economic evolutionary advantage" to vie for the attention of that large Y% group? The X% group -- who will always be there -- are the folks that perhaps should be discouraged by the default social-economic forces, as opposed to now, where they are the spearhead of one of the only financially viable markets left to downtown-campus business owners wishing to cater to the U population

Re: (2 of 2)

[kestenbaum]

I'm not ignoring you, I've just been too busy to write a decent reply.

I should say that East Lansing also had a tremendous amount of music going on amongst all the drinking. I didn't know them, but the Verve Pipe was one East Lansing band that made it big. That's pretty much over now.

As you probably guessed, I was involved in helping put on concerts and dances back in the day (mostly folk, international stuff), but not in bars.

It takes two for a dysfunctional relationship

[redmomoko]

The University's attitudes towards A2 don't help either. In a lot of ways the U acts like a well-heeled abuser. Take parking. The daily influx of tons of cars to the streets around the U is a huge problem for the people who live on those streets. It sucks to live someplace and not be able to park your car there because the entire street is filled with the cars of staff and students. Thus the push for neighborhood stickers on cars to limit who can park where. From what I hear, in talks with non-U groups about the parking problems the U has consistently had the attitude of "So?" and steadfastly refused to discuss the problem. The U knows that A2 would be just another Saline without it so it apparently thinks that everyone else in A2 can just lump it

Re: It takes two for a dysfunctional relationship

[_earthshine_]

This is a fair point, and one i can't speak to very well. If there really is a push-pull love-hate relationship betweent the City and U, then that situation needs to be remedied. Perhaps A2C3 is seen as the spearhead of that effort, or perhaps it's a token effort doomed to failure for that very reason... Only the folks in the know can say, but i think you've brought up a key "human reality" factor that plays in here and needs to be addressed.

Also I think that a lot of students are just richer than we were when we were there.

Hrm... maybe. I guess by some metrics, they'd have to be. I don't know how the U's tuition and cost hikes rate relative to other comparable universities nationwide, but i can tell you that -- especially as an out-of-stater -- i was witness to some hefty bills and constant aggressive increases during my time there.

If the U demographic is changing as you suggest, that'd be another thing to look at -- who the key sub-populations involved are, and how we must account for them in our solution.

[puggleville]

Fascinating discussion here, thanks for starting this

[_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

[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

[_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