City of AA vs MGoMarquee
Yesterday AA City Concil voted to 'ask' the university to take down their new digital billboard.
I wonder how this will turn out since it cost $2.8 Million.
Now that it has been up for a while what does everyone think of it? I've only seen it on gamedays and havent really been a huge fan. I for one would rather have a giant noodle.
November 8th, 2013 at 8:22 AM ^
Seems reasonable for the University to scale back the "flashing" nature of it. Rotate messages a bit less. They won't, and I don't think they need to, take it down but I think they could work with the city to make it less intrusive. Collaboration goes a long way in any realm.
November 8th, 2013 at 8:27 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 8:32 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 8:38 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^
Cheaper by far then building a new one. There used to be a show on that there TV box about moving big things. Now, I don't think a wheelbarrow is your best option but it can be done.
I'm not suggesting they should, but it's definitely not impossible.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:07 AM ^
It's not impossible, but it would be a monumental project, as they would have to not only relocate the board, but also the circuitry.
November 8th, 2013 at 8:38 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 8:40 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 8:41 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^
The regents have approved a $173 million project to renovate the IM, CCRB, NCRB, and other facilities, which if I recall correctly all operate completely outside the athletic department. $2.8 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what's going to spent on those facilities.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:13 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:54 AM ^
This spending will return ad revenue, so it isn't as if they are just peeing money down the pit from 300.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:23 AM ^
I appreciate you letting us all know that, seriously. I played at the CCRB at Bill Frieder's basketball camp more than years ago, and then during my days at UM also. I understand people bitching about 3M$ for a sign that is a violation of the city ordinance if constructed by an entity other than the U, but, frankly, it does not seem out of place in comparison to the size of the buildings in the vicinity, or the sheer number of people that walk, not drive, by it on a weekly basis. If it complied with the ordinance, I doubt I'd be able to see it walking with the mobs from teh golf course to the stadium, much less read it.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
Paid for by more student fees. Because why not, right?
November 8th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
Paid in part by student fees, as this article makes clearer.
The renovations will be paid using a $65 per-term student fee, a $7.50 per-game increase on student tickets for football games, a $1 million annual allocation from U-M's parking and transportation department and the reallocation of $25 million in facilities funding.
And it's not like Michigan is unusual in using student fees to pay for these facilities:
Many Big Ten universities already use fees to pay for gym and union facilities. Ohio State University levies a $123 recreational fee and a $74 union fee per term, the University of Maryland levies a $153 union fee and $174 recreation facility fee per term and Penn State University levies a $112 student facilities fee per term.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
The IM Building is great, it just needs some renovations. I've yet to find a racquetball court that plays as well as the ones in the basement.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^
Except the hours suck. They don't open until 9am and the terrible pool there has even worse hours. And if it's even slightly busy the weight room gets incredibly cramped. Great? Eastern's Rec is way better. In fact every college campus I've been on has a better rec center.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:29 AM ^
So your beef is mostly with usage and hours... What does that have to do with the quality of the building?
At the end of the day, an exercise facility is an exercise facility. A treadmill is a treadmill, no matter where it is. And once you graduate and realize how much gym memberships cost for buildings even less inspiring than a place like the CCRB, you'll realize what a resource you have for a swipe of the MCard.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^
are the university property, not athletic department which is two totally separate things. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the university, not the athletic department.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
They're separate in a way, but the AD still operates as part of the University, right? It's not a minor league just yet.
November 8th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^
From 1921 to 2009, Recreational Sports (the unit in charge of maintaining, operating, and building recreational facilities for students, including IM and CCRB) was under the Department of Athletics. The reason the IM and CCRB are in such bad shape is that Athletics refused to spend any money on their renovation. In 2009, the university moved Recreational Sports out of Athletics and into the Division of Student Affairs. So yes, it is the athletic department's fault to a large extent.
November 8th, 2013 at 8:54 AM ^
Here is the draft of the resolution, if anyone is interested - (LINK)
It looks like the city is essentially trying to get them to comply with the Sign Ordinance, which would be fine if the University were not an autonomous state institution and therefore exempt from local ordinances.
Councilman Chris Taylor, quoted (here):
"We made this judgment based upon a belief that these billboards serve to distract drivers and that the intrusion of illuminated advertising degrades our vision-scape," he said, noting the billboard's sole purpose is to divert drivers' attention."
November 8th, 2013 at 8:56 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:08 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
Michigan paid for the rights to use AA police on football gameday so essentially, AA is screwed in that respect. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:31 AM ^
You're wrong.
Even though Michigan has paid for the use of AA police, the city is under no obligation to provide them. The city can choose to refuse the universities money and not provide police officers.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^
Michigan paid for control of AA police on football gameday and AA's city council can't do anything about it because they gave up their control.
I mis-spoke(typed) that Michigan paid for their rights, what I meant was paid to control the AA police so they would pull them away at anytime for football gameday.
November 8th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^
They could simply break the contract and pay the fees for it if there is no damages provision in the contract. If there is, then it depends. But yes, they can absolutely simply tell the University to screw off, if they really, really wanted to. Seems like that type of ending is incredibly unlikely, though.
November 8th, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^
Pay the fees: they could simply file a declaratory action (or respond to one filed by the University) by immediately admitting they broke the contract, calculating the damages (lost revenue to the AAPD) with minimal attorneys' fees; their in-house attorneys could easily do this. They would need to do this during the offseason, I'd say, to avoid the likelihood of being hit with an emergency motion for an injunction or other such equitable remedy (temporary restraining order). Also, the likelihood of this scenario unfolding and going that far is...minimal.
November 8th, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^
never.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:04 AM ^
the billboard's sole purpose is to divert drivers' attention
Driving around town, my attention is far more often diverted trying to read the mind of any pedestrian who happens to be near a crosswalk—while simultaneously checking my rearview mirror to see if I'll be rear-ended if I suddenly—by city ordinance—have to stop.
November 8th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
That may be the most Ann Arbor thing ever to say. Glad the Michgan and State Theater are grandfathered in.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:06 AM ^
I am only down voting because I think the city council should piss off and deal with it.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:06 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:10 AM ^
...serious bullshit that the U can just do whatever it wants while disregarding the community that hosts them. I can't believe I'm saying this, but for once...Muck Fichigan!
November 8th, 2013 at 9:14 AM ^
That board is beyond stupid. We need to save money in the Athletic Department for really imprortant things like.....
November 8th, 2013 at 9:14 AM ^
was a steel industry town, or Detroit was a car industry town. It doesn't matter that the "company" in this case is an educational institution—UM can do whatever the hell it wants to do with little meaningful opposition from local officials and politicians.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:28 AM ^
It's quite a bit different, actually. The UM is expressly exempt from the City's reach as it is it's own governing entity. GM was still subject to City ordinances, it just often was able to rewrite those.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:56 AM ^
State universities in Michigan are CONSTITUTIONALLY EXEMPT from pretty much all other non-federal governmental interference. Their lobbyist did some serious work at the last ConCon.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
Ding ding ding. It wouldn't matter if the University were a good neighbor to the city around it. But even beyond the marquee, it really, really isn't. The most recent example being the Munger grad dorm going up where Blimpy used to be. Eminent domain land acquisition, massive demolition, and a billionaire-funded dorm most every grad student can't afford and wouldn't want to live in anyway based on its design and premise.
November 8th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
They can get huge donations to build things no one wants or needs, but no one will donate hundreds of millions for a tuition freeze...
November 8th, 2013 at 7:45 PM ^
That's what really gets me about the Munger donation. They took money to substantially pay for a project thought up by the benefactor without taking the constituency (grad students) in mind, based on faulty premises about how graduate students work, set at a cost point that takes up far too much of a graduate stipend to allow for things like eating and living... And the University still has to take out a good chunk of change to make up the difference!
It's amazing.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:47 AM ^
It doesn't matter whether an institution's power and influence is a result of pure economic might or is a result of being written into a governing constitution, the functional end result on the street is the same. The 900-ton gorilla can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants in its own domain.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
The point is the University keeps making its domain bigger. Have you been keeping track of just how much land Michigan has acquired over the past decade or so? To continue the analogy, when the gorilla in the room is gorging itself to take up even more space in its corner, doubles down on its right to do whatever it wants no matter how big it gets, and gets increasingly defensive about it, what are you supposed to do?
November 8th, 2013 at 9:28 AM ^
I agree. The board is on the university's property, so I don't see how the city can tell them what to do.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:21 AM ^
That it was a good idea until it was up. It really is hard to take your eyes off the thing when driving by. It is hard to argue that it is not distracting.
And yes, the city has no governing ability over the monster that is UM in Ann Arbor, for better and worse.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^
I dont really know why The Athletic Dept didnt research this more?
Was it really needed?
November 8th, 2013 at 9:29 AM ^
Let Brandon keep his sign but have him pay to fix the poor roads that surround the stadium.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^
Now that is a great idea.