Thursday, July 31, 2025

Exclusive: Complaint filed against Ann Arbor's Library Green Conservancy for Michigan Campaign Finance Act violation

 

A screenshot of the complaint filed against the Library Green Conservancy 

Andrew Robbins, a researcher at  U of M, has filed a complaint against the Library Green Conservancy (LGC) for violating the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. Under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act 501(c)(3)s like the LGC are limited in their ability to spend money advocating for specific candidates or ballot initiatives. 

The complaint against the LGC alleges the following:

The Library Green Conservancy (LGC), a Michigan 501(c)(3) organization, is in violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act by having spent over $500.00 on campaign advocacy related to a ballot question without having registered as a ballot question committee and without having disclosed their expenditures. 

LGC have caused themselves to meet the definition of a ballot question committee under MCL 169.203(4) through expenditures exceeding $500.00 in a calendar year. Despite this, they have not registered as a ballot question committee. Their communications meet the requirements for express words of defeat under MCL 169.206(2)(j), and their expenditures in calendar year 2025 have exceeded $500.00 as described under MCL 169.254(3)

Examples of language designed to persuade voters to vote no include: 

"Proposals A & B are not needed to replace the downtown library." 

"Proposals A & B would allow the sale of valuable downtown public land for $1 for private development" 

"Proposals A & B would [...] overturn the will of the majority of 2018 voters." 

"Proposals A & B are NOT needed for a new library." 

"Proposals A & B are misleading." 

"YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST PROPOSALS A & B AND STILL GET A NEW LIBRARY!" 

"The park we voted for is under attack!" 

"Proposals A & B are the 1st step toward the goal [...] to sell our Parks and Park Land to High Rise Building Developers" 

Direct attacks against elected officials, including AADL president Molly Kleinman.

The complaint contains evidence, including statements made by the LGC's attorney, Tom Wieder, that the LGC spent $59,000 advocating against Proposals A and B. 

Though it is probably too late to directly impact the vote on Proposals A and B, it will be interesting to see how this complaint plays out. Stay tuned for more on this story as it develops. 



Monday, July 28, 2025

Letter to Damn Arbor: The Library Green Conservancy and AADL

NOTE: This is a letter to Damn Arbor from former AADL Director, Josie Parker. If you'd like to submit a Letter to Damn Arbor, please send it to damn.arbor@gmail.com. 

The Library Green Conservancy's Observer Ad


When I first saw the Library Green Conservancy’s full-page ad in the Observer, insinuating that an unrealistic rendering of a building over the Library Lane garage, was actually an AADL document, I was reminded yet again of how this group is willing to sacrifice the good reputation of the AADL to meet its own ends. A number of years ago, there was another drawing showing a walkway from William Street through to the parking garage rooftop across the properties of the AADL and the University of MI Credit Union. Seeing the published rendering was the first that AADL knew of its existence and there was no answer to our queries of what was intended. We did, however, have to spend a lot of time reassuring our neighbors and the general public that the rendering was not an AADL document. 

It seems that this group knows it has failed to deliver on its promises from when the ballot proposal designating the public property owned by the city as "The Center of the City” was passed in 2018. Many years later, nothing has changed, and the Library Green Conservancy seems determined to take no responsibility for that. I am sadly not surprised. 

From the moment that a paid worker gathering signatures for the initial 2018 ballot initiative stopped me in front of a library branch and asked me to sign so that the Library’s proposal for a park could go on the ballot, I knew that the AADL was being used. When I challenged a leader of the Library Green Conservancy, I got a smirk and a shrug. Years later after failed attempts to raise money and deliver on their promises, they approached the AADL about financially contributing to an investment opportunity to support their work. I declined after explaining that it would be an unlawful use of library funds and I was very disappointed at having been solicited. Once again, I got the smirk and the shrug. 

I remember seeing a name listed among the Library Green Conservancy’s supporters I was surprised to see there. When asked, these claimed supporters were also surprised to hear they were on a list of supporters of an organization they decidedly did not support. This has happened to local businesses as well. A smirk and a shrug. 

Over the years the AADL met with the Library Green Conservancy several times, because an activated public space in that area serves all of the community’s interests. Our efforts were met with ridiculous, unworkable proposals, such as a cryptocurrency that would be unique to their Commons, or drawings playing fast and loose with scale, showing large mature trees growing in surface pits. They would propose that the Commons could include meeting rooms and art galleries and develop collections of local history. Just like a library. 

The Center of the City’s infrequent events, usually announced on short notice, accompanied by last-minute requests for Library support, became a challenge for the library services running next door. They would close the parking lot for a weekend and hold a 12 hour event with just a handful of attendees. They would drape cables unsafely down the parking structure stairs or leave equipment on site after their event permit had ended. Alcohol was sold at one of their events, without a permit, just steps from the Library. 

Ultimately we came to the realization that distancing the operations of the AADL from the Center of the City was the wise and prudent choice. 

Now, when the City and the AADL are working together to make the corner of 5th and William and the parking garage roof a place to live, work and play for generations, the Library Green Conservancy with their ads and mailers are once again trying to misuse a beloved and valued public institution’s reputation, and for what? They don’t appear to be serious about developing the area as a park. They are accountable to no-one and take no responsibility for their lack of progress since 2018. Shouldn’t an organization that wants to be responsible for public space take some responsibility for their work on that public space? I think it is worth the public’s time to ask them. 

I hope that those of you who vote in the City of Ann Arbor will see through the Library Green Conservancy’s attempts to confuse the public and avoid accountability, and vote yes on Proposals A & B by August 5th. We’ve all seen what they can do with the surface of a parking garage. Now let’s see what the Library can do with it.

Monday, July 21, 2025

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: July 21, 2025

 


Gentle reader, it's #a2Council Night in Ann Arbor. Here's the agenda

The night kicks off with a respectable, 21-item consent agenda. The first 6 items are street closures. CA-1 is for Ann Arbor Pride, CA-2 is for the UA Block Party, CA-3 is for Move-In, CA-4 is for Festifall, CA-5 is for GoBlueMix, CA-6 is for the Autumnal Green Fair. That's a lot of street closures!

CA-7 is the development agreement for the Braun Court mid-rise. CA-8 is the development agreement for the townhouses going in at 318 E Jefferson. 

There are 5 public hearings on the docket this evening. PH-1/B-1 is for some changes to the UDC. PH-2/B-2 incorporates changes to citizen participation rules for Planning Commission. PH-3/B-3 is for a routine township annexation for 5.9 acres at 255-371 Scio Church, 2180 Ann Arbor-Saline. PH-4/DB-1 is for the the site plan for the above address, which will be called 75 South Main. PH-5/DS-1 is for the first amendment to the Broadway Park Brownfield Plan. 

DC-1 is a resolution to appoint Jessica Francis to the Independent Community Police Oversight Commission. DC-2 is for the reappointment of a non-registered elector, Michelle Merusi, to the Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA). 

DC-3 is this evening's spicy chili. The vaguely titled Resolution Regarding the Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CULP). This resolution requests Planning Commission make several additions to the CULP. My take is that this is an attempt to placate the Pause the Plan folks. It also specifically authorizes an amendment to the contract with Interface Studios for the additional extension of time and the creation of an additional iteration of the Draft Plan, and to support attendance at upcoming public meetings at an amount not to exceed $83,300, for a total revised contract of $883,990. This probably deserves a whole article on its own. I'll just say to listen to public commentary tonight. 

And that's all there is. If you want to follow the blow by blow tonight, make sure you check out the #a2Council hashtag on Bluesky. 

Monday, July 7, 2025

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: July 7, 2025

 


Gentle readers, tonight is #a2Council night. Here's the agenda

The evening kicks off with a modest, 14-item consent agenda. CA-1 is an update to the site plan for 625 Church Street. CA-2 is an update to the site plan for 303 Detroit Street. 

There are no public hearings nor ordinance first readings on the agenda tonight. 

There is but one resolution on the docket this evening. DC-1 is a resolution approving the recommendation of the City Administrator for the Timing of Bond Issuance for the Arbor South Project. This is probably tonight's spiciest chili. The big question here is how involved the city should be in the parking structure for new South Town project. 

And that's all there is. If you want to follow the blow by blow tonight, make sure you check out the #a2Council hashtag on Bluesky.