Monday, October 19, 2020

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: October 19, 2020


Gentle readers, tonight is the final spooktacular #a2council meeting of October. Here's the agenda.  

The evening kicks off with with a modest 11 item consent agenda. Of note, CA-3, a resolution to accept a $300,000 Natural Resources Trust Grant to improve access at the Argo Canoe Livery. 

There are three public hearings on the docket this evening all of which deal with the Veridian at County Farm Park. This is a sustainable subsidized and market rate housing project going in where the old Juvenile Detention Facility was. PH-1/B-1 is on the PUD for the site. PH-2/DB-1 is on the development agreement. PH-3/DB-2 is on the site plan. 

DC-1 is a resolution to rename Rose White Park in honor of the late Ward 4 Councilmember, Graydon Krapohl. 

DC-3 is probably the spiciest chili of the night. Sponsored by lame duck CMs Eaton and Lumm, this is a resolution to return residential water rates from a four-tier structure to a three-tier structure. For a deep dive into this, check out this great article by Erich Z. The tl:dr here is that switching back to a three-tier structure would benefit households that use a lot of water, e.g. people with pools and with lawn irrigation. This would come at the expense of moderate water users. This has been something that Lumm has been really passionate about. In my opinion, regardless of weather you agree with this resolution or not, changing something so substantial when half of the council will be leaving next month. 

As always, gentle reader, I am probably forgetting some very important items here. What agenda items are you most looking forward to seeing. I am guessing that tonight will be another late night around the virtual council table. Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2council hashtag.

Monday, October 5, 2020

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: October 5, 2020

 

 

Gentle readers tonight is a spooktacular lame duck edition of a2#council. Read the agenda, if you dare.   

The evening kicks off with a brief 9-item consent agenda. Of note, CA-9, the citizen budget priority survey that CM Lumm promised at the last meeting. 

There are two public hearings tonight. PH-1 is a routine township island rezoning. PH-2/B-2 is the second reading of the updated sign ordinance. I don't know a ton about what this changes, but it has been three years in the making. 

Elsewhere on the agenda, DC-1 is an amendment to the recycling plant tours agreement with the Ecology Center. They do tours of the MRF for AAPS students. There was some disagreement about this last time it came forward. 

The real spicy chilis tonight are DC-3 and DC-4. The former directs the city attorney to "File a Written Public Opinion on Dissolution of the DDA." While the latter is a resolution to "Direct the City Administrator and City Attorney to Conduct Due Diligence and Prepare an Ordinance for Dissolution of the DDA." Both of these are sponsored by CMs Bannister and Griswold and were added to the agenda on Friday. In comments to the media CM Griswold said she just wants to start a conversation about this. Seems like a heck of a way to do that. Regardless of what you think of the DDA, the idea of dissolving it during the lame duck session of council, when half of the members will be replaced in November, does not seem like good governance. 

Finally we arrive at DC-5, a resolution "Accelerating Development of the Center of the City Community Commons and Recognizing the Self-Organized Open “Community Commons Initiating Committee” as a Community Partner in the Process." I expect that council will get to this late at night and tempers will be high and that council will re-hash a lot of the debate about the Library Lot. 


As always, gentle reader, I am probably forgetting some very important items here. What agenda items are you most looking forward to seeing. I am guessing that tonight will be another late night around the virtual council table. Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2council hashtag.

Monday, September 21, 2020

Ann Arbor City Council Agenda: September 21, 2020

 


Gentle readers, it's #a2council night in Ann Arbor. Here's the agenda

The evening kicks off with a 22 item consent agenda. Of note, CA-16, traffic calming on fernwood. Also, CA-19, a street resurfacing project. Finally there is CA-22, a resolution to approve the police contract. 

There are two public hearings on the docket tonight. PH-1 is a routine township island annexation. PH-2 is on 841 Broadway PUD. This is a development at the old DTE Gasworks along the river. I think this is a good project. 

Elsewhere on the agenda we've got C-1, the first reading off an ordinance to modify the Veridian at County Farm PUD. DC-2 is a resolution to decriminalize entheogenic plants. e.g. Psilocybin mushrooms and Peyote, maybe ayahuasca. My biggest issue with this is that Psilocybin mushrooms are emphatically not plants. DC-5 is a resolution to Conduct a 2020 Budget Priorities Citizen Survey to Inform Development of the City's FY22 Budget and FY23 Financial Plan. This is sponsored by CM Lumm and is one of her perennial interests. I think there is probably a good essay to write out there about the dangers off government by surveymonkey. Also, it's worth noting that Lumm has ignored the results of citizen surveys when she disagrees with them. Specifically she has voted against road diets, when surveys show the majority of residents would support minor delays in driving time to improve pedestrian and driver safety. 

Finally we have DC-7 a resolution to end the Healthy Streets Program outside of Downtown. CM Ramlawi is sponsoring this. I think it's a bad idea. This program is designed to give pedestrians and cyclists safe space to travel while maintaining social distance. If it weren't for this program how would you safely cross the Broadway Bridge as a pedestrian or cyclist if there is someone coming from the opposite direction?

As always, gentle reader, I am probably forgetting some very important items here. What agenda items are you most looking forward to seeing. I am guessing that tonight will be another late night around the virtual council table. Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2council hashtag.

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

Childcare in the time of COVID: how U of M is failing its students and employees

Princess Carolyn attempts to maintain a healthy work/life balance


To be a new parent is to endlessly multitask. There’s an episode of Bojack Horseman that focuses on Princess Carolyn, a character who has just adopted a baby. After her nanny quits, Princess Carolyn becomes emotionally (and visually), legion: there’s a central, exhausted Princess Carolyn, doing career/plot things, but in the background you see many versions of Princess Carolyn moving from baby-care task to baby-care task. Some tasks endlessly repeat, and each action leaves a blurry after-image. It’s an artful representation of an unavoidable truth: if you have a kid in the current social and political milieu, you can’t have a career without child care.

Having an 11-month-old during a pandemic makes me luckier than some. My kid can’t talk or walk. He can be entertained with a jar lid. I don’t have to have a second career (novice grade school teacher) on top of my first on top of housework on top of regular child care. I’m also affluent enough to have savings, housing, and plenty to eat. That said, I did not see the pandemic coming when I decided to get a Master’s degree at the University of Michigan.

They gave me an offer I couldn’t refuse: free tuition if I attended as a fulltime student. My spouse and I decided, pre-pandemic, that I should quit my job and have our family live on one salary despite the enormous cost of child care. We discovered I’d qualify for a U of M child care subsidy that would greatly ease the financial burden. The subsidy was the difference between scraping by and living comfortably.

Three months before I received the subsidy, COVID hit. For two months we paid full price at a childcare center closed for everyone but children of first responders. It was also a very large child center (more than 40 children). As a member of a high-risk group, my family and I decided to join a nanny share. By engaging a nanny for three days a week with another family we limit our exposure substantially.

Unfortunately, in Michigan, the subsidy does not apply in practice to nannies or in-home care. Despite its assurances that it cares about the health and well-being of its students, the U of M childcare subsidy is applicable only to licensed child care. This sounds fine on paper, but if you’re in the state of Michigan, a childcare license is only required for “Family and Group Childcare Homes” (where the childcare provider cares for one to twelve unrelated children in their own home) and “Child Care Centers” (where the childcare provider cares for one or more unrelated children in a facility other than a private residence). For a nanny providing care in the child’s home, no license is required.

As a result, the U of M subsidy only applies when you send your child to a place outside the home, where they will have contact with children and childcare workers from different households. If you wish to limit your exposure by engaging in-home care from a single nanny, the subsidy is unavailable.  I was told that licensed in-home care could be covered by the subsidy, but, after conducting some research, I was unable to find any agencies providing licensed in-home care. It’s unclear whether a license is available for an in-home childcare worker.

From a public health perspective, U of M’s position is untenable. From a personal perspective, if the choice is to send our kid to a center, where he is much more likely to contract and spread COVID, or keep him home, we'll eat the cost of a nanny share. My family and I are fortunate to have savings (though they won’t last forever), but I know other families in similar situations are struggling. This gap in the childcare subsidy disproportionately affects women, who are more likely to shoulder the bulk of child care in the home, and low-income students, who are more likely to feel the impact of unsubsidized childcare costs. I know of at least two women who’ve been forced to either leave their programs or take a leave of absence. When you’re making nothing (or the modest salary of a PhD) and working full time, what are your options? Either you pay someone a full mortgage a month for in-home care or take the University’s subsidy and risk your health, the health of your child, and the health of other people. These are nonsense terms.

The GEO (Graduate Employees Organization) has recently pressured the University to reconsider its stance on this policy, and several other issues, by striking. The University has countered with talk of the emergency funds available to students. Were I to get the maximum amount of funds from each source available (CARES and the Rackham graduate school) it would not amount to my original subsidy award. It is also uncertain whether I will be awarded any funds, as the applications are rolling. If the University is serious about diversity, inclusion, and slowing the spread of COVID, it should allow and encourage its families to choose in-home childcare. It should dig into its $12 billion endowment and help those disproportionately bearing the economic brunt of the COVID pandemic.

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: 8 September 2020

 

Happy September gentle reader. Did tonight's #a2council meeting sneak up on you? It snuck up on me. Here's the agenda

The evening kicks off with a 12 item consent agenda. Though it looks like CA-12, "Resolution to Approve Increasing the Purchase Order with Washtenaw County for SWAT Supplies ($26,469.09)" has been pulled. CA-11 looks interesting, it's a resolution to create a temporary childcare fund for city employees. This seems like a good thing to do. 

There are three public hearings on the docket tonight. PH-1 is the second reading of the short term rental ordinance. My guess is that a lot of folks who own Air B&B's will be speaking at this. PH-2 is on a resolution to approve the site plan for a hotel going in at 361 West Eisenhower Parkway. PH-3 is on the Valhalla Annexations. These are 17 parcels on Valhalla Drive which is just south of the intersection of Scio Church and Main.