I recently received this email from J. Eric Ivancich, who I also know from the IT community.
Dear Mayor Hieftje and Members of the Ann Arbor City Council:
A few weeks ago you should have received a booklet that Rachel Kaplan, Ray De Young, and I sent you. It is entitled “Nearby Nature in the City: Preserving and Enhancing Livability“, and it is about integrating nature into the urban environment. We wrote it with the support of the USDA Forest Service. The nature that surrounds us in Ann Arbor’s downtown and nearby commercial areas is important to many people and to our quality of life. So often it’s taken for granted and not discussed. Yet when the removal of some of that nature is threatened, people do respond and speak up. But often it’s too late. I think it’s in all of our best interest to acknowledge and address this important resource and find ways to sustain and build it before we lose it patch by patch.
An example of this is the nature in the courtyard of the Anberay apartment complex on East University. We included a picture of it on p. 15 of our booklet. So it was a sad irony when it was recently announced that a developer intends to replace the structure with one containing more units. I can only assume that the courtyard and its nature will be lost. And many people have expressed their displeasure at losing this building and/or its nature to us and in various community forums.
It appears that Ann Arbor’s downtown will become more dense. And there are many advantages to that trend. But density and urban nature do not have to be at odds. As part of our representative government, you are in a great position to know how we might avoid the anticipated regret of losing this nature that is part of our lives. And while preserving existing nature can be worthwhile, replacing lost nature and including new nature in development and redevelopment projects are also important. This is something we can do, and I hope we can use the lesson of the Anberay apartment complex to make some meaningful changes.
Sincerely,
J. Eric Ivancich
Ann Arbor, MI
4 users commented in " Nearby Nature in the City: Preserving and Enhancing Livability "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackConsider what Chicago has done with rooftops.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1115_041115_green_roofs.html?fs=www3.nationalgeographic.com&fs=plasma.nationalgeographic.com
There is a small natural area with several trees and a pedestrian bench on Fourth Avenue near the Farmers Market. Unfortunately the proposed Market renovations will cut at least one of the trees and pave part of this area.
I find it amazing that Planning Commission and Council will argue that developers should provide ‘green’ designs but when the Parks Department proposes a modification to the market it removes mature trees, adds pavement and buildings with metal roofs.
April 21, 2007
Dear Councilman Suarez,
I am writing in regard to a loophole in the Ann Arbor City Noise Ordinance. I am asking you to take action to close this loophole. As a psychologist, you are no doubt aware of the harmful affects of excessive noise on people.
The loophole concerns an exception to the Ordinance allowing lawn services to operate in residential neighborhoods at a very loud noise level (up to 90 decibels). The specific section in the Ordinance is Chap. 119, Sec. 9:364-365. This allowable noise level is louder than the noise from the average factory (75 decibels) and nearly as loud as that in the front row seats of a rock concert (110 decibels).
The reason I am so concerned about this is because:
1. Our next door neighbor has a lawn service operating near or at this 90 decibel level, and
2. I taught a course for six years at the University of Michigan on neighborhood quality.
I have asked the neighbor to turn the mower noise down, but she refuses. She even refused a request by the Ann Arbor Police to reduce the mower noise. (Other lawn services operate in our neighborhood at these excessive noise levels as well.) As a result, the policemen, Office Mike Cemanzar and Lt. Greg O’Dell, suggested to me that the best way to solve this problem is to have the loophole in the Ordinance closed by an act of City Council.
I had contacted former Ward 1 councilperson Kim Groome about this loophole in 2005. She was beginning to investigate it, but then left council to move out of town. A letter and an email to the other Ward 1 councilman Robert Johnson were never answered.
Attached are copies of the loophole section of the Ordinance and a Letter to the Editor. Please review it and consider taking action to close this loophole. Its affect is to lower the quality of life in our neighborhood and likely in other city neighborhoods. Please feel free to contact me with questions at 734-996-8610 or cyoakam1@comcast.net (1816 Pontaic Trail).
Sincerely,
Attachments: portion of Ordinance
Letter to the Editor Cy Yoakam
I agree with Cy Yoakam. Noise pollution is a concern to quality of life and when loud enough to the health of a person. Any loop holes in AA ordinance/law should be closed. I think also that AA should put on the books far more strict noise ordinance. I myself always find it very discomforting by the noise of motorcycles which seem to be altered by owners from legal equipment to those which make unsafe noise. I do not frequent restaurants downtown because it is just not a very nice experience sitting outside having a meal and then a motorcycle come down the street at 110 Decibels.
Leave A Reply