Ann Arbor City Planning Department
January 25, 2005

Introduction

Who are we? CRS, Citizens for Responsible Schools, comprises a diverse group of people located throughout Ann Arbor: business, physics, natural resource and urban planning professors, librarians, teachers, civil rights attorneys, parents and non-parents, members of the Sierra Club, members of the Michigan Land Use Institute and many others throughout the city and county.
 
What is our goal? Our current goal is to present a case for rejecting the annexation request by the Ann Arbor Public School District. The property at N. Maple and M-14 is currently in Ann Arbor Township. and would be used for the sole purpose of building a comprehensive new high school.  We believe that this development  will not optimally suit the city, a majority of the residents or visitors. 
 

Who was in favor of the bond, by what margin did it pass, and how was it promoted? The total number who voted in favor of the bond was 10,000 out of a possible of 110,000 registered voters. The site was not in the ballot language, therefore many who voted did not know the location of the proposed school. The promotional link on Ann Arbor Public School's  website and all brochures supporting the campaign to win the bond vote was sponsored by Granger, the contractor who was subsequently hired.
 
Site Selection:  There is no evidence that the Board of Education seriously researched alternate sites, nor entered into possible agreements with the city, township, or county for land sale or swap for the Greenbelt. The only other site considered was rejected because it would require the expenditure of hooking up to utilities, water and sewage (the same as it will for this site).   The District only needs approximately 50% of the current 109 acre site. We believe that even now there are other available sites.  The proposed footprint includes acres and acres for parking and athletic facilities. The development would radically change the character of the neighborhood. The site has long served as a  refuge for wildlife, a habitat for special natural features, a frog pond, wetlands, woodlots, and open space serving all of Ann Arbor. The development of this site will also be a springboard for sprawl and will have a negative long-term impact on this community.
 
What is the timeline? Within four months of the passage of the bond, the development has progressed at an unprecedented speed. Final schematics were approved by fall, 2004. The public never had a chance to look at the designs of candidates. One architect was chosen based upon his previous work. The traffic consultant was brought in by the contractor in September, and there has been an unsuccessful attempt to rush traffic studies. Engineers are trying to coordinate with rushed schematics to design
appropriate storm management areas. Other components of the project are also being rushed.
 
What about state and county involvement? MDOT will not have completed their own studies regarding stop lights or flashing lights on N. Maple until March. WCRC cannot commit until MDOT has made final decisions or until funding can be guaranteed. Residents cannot know the cost of road alterations until everyone is in agreement. 
 
What about safety? To date the traffic studies are incomplete. Many who have seen the simulations or read the traffic report note glaring flaws in which students' lives hang in the balance. Currently the plan has North Maple, the road on the west, continuing to serve all four ramps to and from M-14, all current N. Maple traffic, as well as being the only point of access to the proposed site with its additional 1600 passengers, drivers, walkers and bikers. This includes transit during all weather conditions. Stating that the city should be confident that N. Maple will be safe is negligent and irresponsible.
  
How is  Newport Creek involved?  The Board or Superintendent of schools, George Fornero, may have made a legal agreement with Newport Creek residents (the neighborhood adjoining the east side of the site), without making it available to the public. George Fornero, on the record, has assured residents of Newport Creek that no traffic would go through their streets. We have asked for minutes to all meetings during which such an agreement could have been made. FOIA's have proven to be unsuccessful. We want to appeal to the city and the city attorney to investigate any possible agreement between the Board and the Newport Creek residents. This critical agreement results in the channeling of all traffic into a dangerous situation on N. Maple.
 
How have concerned citizens and those opposed been handled? There has been a great deal of stonewalling, not just limited to those in opposition. The request of the S.E. Michigan Sierra Club, which represents 3,500 members, asking for a binding conservation easement that would benefit residents and protect the natural features, or a donation of the unused land to the City of Ann Arbor, was ignored. Public input has gone unnoticed by the Board, pertinent questions unanswered. Our members on committees ignored.
 

What can CRS do? Can stating the obvious and everything that you've read be enough to sway decision makers? We certainly can't ask people in public positions to risk their jobs by speaking the truth in public. Does a group like ours just slow the process down so that we bring awareness to more of the public? For now, we will present information to the Planning Commission of Ann Arbor and hope for the best.
 
The role of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission?  The construction of large high schools is causing problems in many cities in Michigan as reported by The Michigan Land Use Institute( http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16633 ). If achieving the best possible development is one of the goals of the commission, then the proposed annexation to provide a site for a large high school deserves further scrutiny.
 

What can the city do? While considering annexation and the feasibility of this property for the proposed use, the city should hold to its mission statement as it includes, but is not limited to, concerns about the environment, demographics, walkability, bikeability, land use, the greenbelt, appeal to visitors, the safety of its residents. An effort should also be made to determine the extent to which the Board of Education searched for other sites.
 
In closing, we fear that if this property is annexed to Ann Arbor for the use proposed by the Board of Education, then we will all be entering into an ill-conceived plan. There is much more to be learned about this development and the risk/benefit of annexation.

 
Esther Kirshenbaum