Ann Arbor City Planning Department
January 25, 2005
School Plan vs. Greenbelt Plan
The Ann Arbor Public School District would have you believe it has a mandate from District residents to build a new high school on the 109 acres located on North Maple Road. The June, 2004 ballot was no mandate and I will explain why. Moreover, I think you will find that the Distict's plan contradicts the spirit of the City's Greenbelt initiative and the planning commission's very own mission statement.
The School ballot:
[Slide] Of the 113,213 registered voters in the school district, only 16,423 or 14.5% even voted in the election, an off-cycle election at that. Of the total, only approximately 10,500 people (i.e., 10% of the district voters) voted for the bond issue, and 5,500 (i.e., 5%) voted against it.
The ballot wording was also problematic (please consult your packets). The District refused to allow a separate vote on the high school. The high school was lumped in with numerous other issues: as improving existing schools, updating technology, purchasing new buses, replacing musical instruments, and more. It is impossible to know how many of the yes votes were really in favor of a new high school.
Moreover, many of those who did in fact want a new high school had no idea where the District was intent on putting it because the proposed site of the new high school was not specified on the ballot. The proposed site was not mentioned in the bond package to the state either. We have asked the District many times why the site was not mentioned and are still waiting for a good answer. The obfuscation was intentional.
Site selection:
We have also tried many times to get details of what should have been an exhaustive evaluation of all possible sites. We now know the District never seriously considered other sites. We have never been given any information beyond the following.
The District says it looked at the Pioneer School site and at a site in Pittsfield, but disregarded them because of traffic problems and the cost of utilities hook ups, respectively. Of course, traffic problems are the very definition of the Maple Road site. And utilities hook up costs cannot outweigh the costs, financial, environmental, infrastructural, and safety-related that the Maple Road site presents. The District admits it "chose" the site because it already owned it. Never mind that the development and the construction of M-14 in the area since the land's purchase in the 1960s have rendered it a worse than inadequate site for a high school.
And so, from the beginning, this site was "selected" by default, through inertia, and worst of all in a bubble, that is, out of context, with no thought as to how such development would affect larger traffic patterns in the City or encourage construction and sprawl or fly in the face of the City's own Greenbelt initiative.
Consider the Greenbelt:
The vote to create a Greenbelt around Ann Arbor and to preserve natural spaces in the area passed overwhelmingly with a greater turnout in a smaller voter population than the School ballot, and with clear ballot ballot language. [Slide] About 14,500 residents in Ann Arbor voted yes on the Greenbelt while only 7,000 voted no. That's almost as many voting yes for the Greenbelt as voted at all in the District ballot for the school. Scio Township and Ann Arbor Township voters passed similar proposals 3 to 1.
It was the City and neighboring townships' voters that called for a Greenbelt plan to inhibit sprawl and keep natural land in the area. The District's goal of bulldozing about 65% of the site's 109 natural acres is in direct contradiction to the voters' unmistakable message.
Also note that Citizens for Responsible Schools, in a single day, collected about 300 signatures from Ann Arbor City residents concerned enough with the proposed plan and site to ask the District to slow down the process and rethink their plan. The petition, included in your packets, was ignored by the District and the Board.
This Commission's mission:
To use words from this Commission's own mission statment, this is not the "best possible development" for this site and it certainly does not preserve natural land for the people "who live in, work in, or visit the city". If this land must be developed, what better way to improve the lives of local residents than to use it for a park or nature center. Currently it is used for outdoor studies for students. If the high school, touted as green by the District, is built, the District itself will stop using it for those outdoor studies. Both students and residents will lose a local treasure, forever. If the school is to be built, why not on a piece of land without the great natural characteristics you will hear others speak more about.
The District's plan calls for major road construction. The roads in the area are already dangerous and congested. The planned changes will increase the number of accidents there and increase congestion in a large area around the school. And of course, this development will bring major changes to the character of the area and the neighborhoods there. This goes against the wishes of the voters of the City.
Since bond money can be used only for construction, it is the District's admitted intention to attract students so that the school can pay for its own operation and maintenance. The District's plan encourages sprawl and sprawl is against the wishes of the voters of the City.
For all these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote against annexing the school site at M-14 and Maple Road. Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Supporting information: