Ann Arbor Local Politics! Council Races! Feel The Hits! Comment Count

Brian

tl;dr vote for Ron Ginyard in Ward 1, Kirk Westphal in Ward 2, Julie Grand in Ward 3, Graydon Krapohl in Ward 4, and Chuck Warpehoski in Ward 5.

With the exception of Ginyard in Ward 1 this is a straight council-party ticket that returns the four incumbents to office. (Ginyard is a rotating question mark.) I recommend this for the same reason that I recommend Christopher Taylor's re-election: the future of the city is either a lot of growth or becoming San Francisco. And, really, you don't need to read this one unless you need to know exactly what variety of clownshoes is up against the incumbents in each particular ward.

More generally, the anti party is deeply unserious about the nitty-gritty of running a local government. They vote against by-right developments. Sumi Kalispathy on the water rates:

Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, suggested students who live in luxury apartments might be incentivized to leave their faucets running if they know they're paying a lower water rate.

This unseriousness is reflected in their candidates. Bannister is already infamous for her many addled statements—my favorite:

And hoo boy they unearthed some dingers this time.

Ward by ward stuff is after the jump but with the exception of Ward 1, which features a ghost versus a nutcase, things get very repetitive as I say "this is an incumbent council party person who mostly votes for development" and "uh... bless your heart." Be warned. I did try to keep this as brief as possible.

[After THE JUMP: ward by ward.]

WARD 1

This is an open seat contested by a cipher with no concrete goals and the worst person in Ann Arbor. Ron Ginyard is the cipher. He's a political neophyte who hasn't bothered to vote since moving back to town four years ago and has no concrete ideas on his website. Judging from his appearance at a candidate forum he'd probably be a legitimate swing vote affiliated with neither side but leaning council party.

His opponent is Jeff Hayner, an ICE fan (row 561), "SJW"-deployer (row 4987 and 5 others), MLive ban-sufferer (row 284) and coffee-dad-level hashtagger…

…who shows up to city council meetings to yell at people. His politics is incoherent furious nonsense. This was made obvious by his twitter feed, which had so many bombshells in it that Hayner tried to delete everything in it and finally gave up, taking it private. This was too late.

Hayner is not just a NIMBY...

...he is a BANANA.

His one redeeming quality is that he's never tried to cloak his opposition to building housing by saying that he would like some other financially infeasible thing on a surface parking lot. Hayner is very clear that he cares about nothing other than himself and various Hayner-alikes who show up to protest a dense housing development within walking distance of the hospital because it "only" has 0.9 parking spots per apartment and he might be slightly inconvenienced when he tries to park on the city's street. As a bonus, he has also been captured by Dahlmann.

It's hard to imagine an Ann Arbor resident who is more ill-suited to city council.

One other candidate of note is Ryan Hughes, who is running as an DSA-affiliated independent. He is likely doomed by the nonsense that is partisan local elections since the number of straight ticket Dem voters in Ann Arbor will overwhelm people paying attention to local races—especially this November—but he both has stated political positions and cares about people; the other two candidates check only one box.

WARD 2

Kirk Westphal is a council party member on the correct side of all those 7-4 votes. He says things that indicate he grasps the challenge facing the city and wants to address it...

In a growing job market, if you don't/can't build new construction for the missing middle, AND don't allow market rate construction, you're left with the wealthy displacing those currently occupying middle-income housing, or demo/rebuilding their structures into something they feel suitable. What is frustrating is the lack of focus on policy prescriptions, and heavy dose of "just stop until we figure this all out" (which no desirable city has).

...and I appreciate that he can describe the effect of AA's current policies lucidly. He is a remarkably calm person on social media. He also supports ranked choice voting, which yes please.

Kathy Griswold is his opponent. Griswold has spent a bizarre amount of time over the past few years leading the opposition to various ballot initiatives. She's opposed four separate millages and Ann Arbor's move to eliminate single-digit-turnout off-year elections. Given that these efforts appear to be funded primarily by existing landlords like the guy who owns McKinley and the city's good friend Dennis Dahlmann, my assumption is she is engaged by these people to front for them when a tax that would cut into their bottom line makes the ballot. (Eliminating off year elections threatens Jane Lumm, an independent and anti.) Naturally, she would represent their interests if elected to council.

This goes for Eaton as well, who received donations from the McKinley guy and only did not get them from Dahlmann this time around because the Y-Lot quid pro quo became controversial. The "greedy developers" meme is extremely frustrating because guys who have developed, past-tense, who are just trying to keep rents sky-high get a pass from people who hate change.

WARD 3

Julie Grand, council party, 7-4, etc. obviously frustrated by some of the dim bulbs on the other side of the aisle and makes that publicly known. This is a valuable service in these dire times when expertise, intelligence, and the ability to spell your name correctly in two tries are apparently no longer requirements for public office. I treasure her open disdain for the goofballs who don't do the reading.

In addition, Grand understands how to work the levers of government. She and a couple of housing commission members were able to scrape together several different sources of funding to rebuild some of Ann Arbor's existing housing stock.

Alice Liberson, Grand's opponent, then attacked Grand's housing bonafides in a post on WEMU's website:

At the recent League of Women Voters debate, my opponent said if the sale of the library lot to Core Spaces goes through, we will have 5 million dollars for affordable housing, and could create 200 to 500 units of affordable housing.  Really?  That’s $10,000 to $25,000 per unit.  If this is true, why are they willing to pay Core Spaces 1.5 million dollars for nine units of housing, or $162,000 per unit.  Someone needs to check their math. 

Okay. Of the $18.3 million being spent on the rebuild, approximately 15 comes from the federal government. Another 900k comes from the county. Ann Arbor has a 450k grant and then there is 1.9 million dollars that is unclear because it's just listed as a "loan." That's either 8k or 42k of city money per unit; I am just spitballing here but it's clear that Grand's aware that small local dollars can be spun into large federal grants. Liberson is not. Liberson's post has several other errors, and is particularly ironic because her complaints that Ann Arbor doesn't have a newspaper are paired with various assertions that MLive's solid local reporting clearly refutes.

WARD 4

Graydon Krapohl: incumbent, 7-4 votes, very very bald, former Marine. Krapohl is pretty quiet and doesn't do a lot on the internet so there's not much else to say. Details of his tenure can be found on Ann Arbor Votes, a non-partisan site. Downside: @aol.com email address.

Elizabeth Nelson was a hurried replacement for Joseph Hood, who dropped out after a disastrous early candidate forum and revelations that he was—gasp—a Republican. Unfortunately, this vetting job didn't go any better. Nelson sent fake city notices to a neighbor who hadn't painted their garage door; those only stopped when the neighbors filed a police report. This was Nelson's comment to Ryan Stanton:

"All I can say is people who know me understand this is the kind of silly thing I would do," the candidate said this week. "It became kind of a fun challenge to see how real I could make it look."

The NIMBYiest of all crimes.

Nelson's website is filled with the usual dogwhistles about "million-dollar condos" and "more taxes and more millages"; the latter is particularly disingenuous because city tax rates are going down. She suddenly appeared on the scene to exhort city council not to buy back the Y Lot because "years of litigation" would ensue; approximately a week of litigation ensued before a settlement. Hard pass.

WARD 5

Chuck Warpehoski: incumbent, 7-4 votes, Quaker(!), director of a local nonprofit. A 2016 Daily endorsement covers the basics if you would like an article-length discussion of Warpehoski's priorities. I think it says something about something that the very worst thing the Eaton faction could come up with about Warpehoski is that he correctly pointed out that several of the people furious about the Lowertown development were advocating for a PUD*, and several years before the very same people were at council advocating against the proposed PUD. This as spun as "question[ing] the integrity" of those people. I'd characterize it more as pointing out their lack thereof.

Ali Ramlawi does have a bit of a track record after running unsuccessfully for the other Ward 5 seat, currently held by Chip Smith, last year. Ramlawi's 2017 campaign was summed up ably by Chris Dzombak, to the point where I have nothing more to add. I mean:

"We should be a better city," Ramlawi said. "I think we should be the city that I fell in love with back in 1985. It's not the same now."

This is impossible and also would be harmful to lots of people. But at least he doesn't do NIMBY crimes.

*[Planned Unit Development, which is a zoning variance tailored to a specific building proposal. A previous failed attempt to develop the Lowertown site got a PUD passed so any other development more or less had to be 1) the exact same thing that failed earlier or 2) rezoned.]

Did you get through this? Here's a cookie.

Comments

Brian

July 28th, 2018 at 3:59 PM ^

I thought you had AA politics related objections. 

If you can't take an average of one post a year in the offseason, this one on a Saturday, that is not on a topic you care about then, sure, I'm trolling you. I have a platform and care about the direction of my city and want to use that platform to do what I can to help. If that annoys people oh well. 

MGlobules

July 28th, 2018 at 4:12 PM ^

I would say: do it really well, not half-heartedly or apologetically. Create visual and ideological space for it. Offer the rationale. The site is unfortunately really really not good looking; it had a homemade feeling that was really fun, even if changes were too long in coming. I'm curious whether any of the highly idiosyncratic crew that creates the content doesn't find it generic as H? It looks like UMHoops, which is a site with with a carrot up its behind and what may be the least relaxed (if fundamentally decent) proprietor in the world.  

Go Blue Eyes

July 28th, 2018 at 4:28 PM ^

I disagree with one of your choices but it is your blog.  I think the old saying applies that if you don't like it start your own blog.  This is one of the best if not the best available and it costs zero to participate.  But you're still wrong on the 5th ward. :)

Jota09

July 28th, 2018 at 9:03 PM ^

Thank you for stating this. My only complaint about your political posts was that they flew in the face of your stated blog ethics.  I am still of the mind that you might want to add a disclaimer there about using your platform for local city politics.  It makes things crystal clear.  I don't use twitter, so this is the first I've seen you address your political posts.  

Also if I may, are all these candidates Democrat?  Is this a primary or general?  I got confused about that.  And what is anti-party?  I don't live in Ann Arbor, so I don't know about the local politics.  But I did read it and want to understand what I read.

Brodie

August 5th, 2018 at 10:51 PM ^

iirc, and I've only been registered to vote in Ann Arbor since 2014 so I may be wrong, no Republicans have actually even sought local elections here in a number of years. Ann Arbor hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1996 and most seats are uncontested in November. 

Magnus

July 28th, 2018 at 2:49 PM ^

I didn't read past the first paragraph, but good for you, Brian. We take too little interest in politics in this country. I appreciate your willingness to put yourself on the line a little bit to talk about things that matter.

ST3

July 28th, 2018 at 2:55 PM ^

Folks complaining about this post are missing the point completely. Without this post, I never would have known that Graydon Krapohl and Chuck Warpehoski exist. Talk about a couple NOTY candidates. If I saw Krapohl and Warpehoski on the defensive line depth chart, I would be giddy.

Please tell me they sing this at Chuck’s rallies, “Warpehoski has the power, hand of god has struck the hour...”

bronxblue

July 28th, 2018 at 3:12 PM ^

Downside: @aol.com email address.

Ride or die with prodigy.net and you'll always get my vote.

I will say, all of this people read like the local NIMBYs around me as well, though as a suburb of a major city you get the added bonus of a bunch of a bunch of satellite cities that would be irrelevant otherwise getting really pissy about the possibility of more or fewer bus/train lines.

bronxblue

July 28th, 2018 at 7:16 PM ^

It amazes me how often people read things that clearly bothers them (often for no real reason except it flashes red in their head) and then rush down to the comments to complain.  And more times than not because they don't actually have a reason to dislike it on the merits, they don't provide anything useful to the conversation.

 

So yeah, feel free to just skip articles about hyper-local politics if it offends your sensibilities.

It's Always Marcia

July 29th, 2018 at 1:31 PM ^

I'm sure your church is a good church, and I'd probably want to go to it sometimes if I lived near it.

But, I doubt there is a church in America that doesn't water down the Gospel. Some just less than others. Paul said he wanted "to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

Have you ever heard Christ and him crucified, and ALL that entails? I have never heard a real, graphic application of all of it. The clearest example: when have you heard you are supposed to crucify your sins? America doesn't want to hear about suffering. It just wants the good stuff. It's like those "prophets" that told Jeremiah the people would be out of Babylon soon, in like 2 years, but Jeremiah said it would be a long time, 70 years. They didn't want to hear the graphic truth then. They wanted to hear good news. It's not different now.

Anyway, rant end.

aaamichfan

July 28th, 2018 at 3:25 PM ^

I really enjoy Brian's political posts. If the pro-development group can maintain a majority for a couple more elections(which I assume will happen given that their 60+ year old base is gradually dying off), Ann Arbor will be a much improved city over the next decade. 

Blue Vet

July 28th, 2018 at 3:38 PM ^

You want specific objections?! I'll give you specific objections:

1) I don't care about this topic, so no one else should care about it either.

2) I disagree so why are you putting it in front of my eyes?

3) Why isn't this about football or beer?!

4) I most especially and specifically object that you keep your blog interesting. Have you no shame, sir?

Holmdel

July 28th, 2018 at 4:31 PM ^

Brian, as someone who loves both Ann Arbor and San Francisco, when you say the future for Ann Arbor is either a lot of growth or becoming San Francisco, are you offering the SF option as an apocalyptic warning, or are you suggesting that would be a good thing?

tsabesi

July 28th, 2018 at 5:48 PM ^

I'll try to articulate Brian's POV in my own words: Brian means SF is an apocalyptic (though that's a little strong) example of what's to come without development. Ann Arbor is undergoing massive economic growth like SF has since the tech industry started taking over the bay area (this is overall a good thing), but one downside is that SF has seen ridiculous housing price increases (both relative to average/median income and mismatching between stock type and the overall income distribution). This is due to a number of vested interests working to stop higher density housing development throughout the bay area. This behavior leads to sprawl being the only option which leads to unworkable commute times to many workplaces for most workers who need affordable housing and specifically in the bay area where there aren't that many places to sprawl with reasonable infrastructure it just means even higher prices and longer commutes.

 

The vested interests tend to be 1) Long term community residents (renters and owners) and community groups resistant to things that would change the feel of the neighborhood (this can be the opposition to gentrification, blue collar to white collar changes, changing from single family homes to condo and apartment buildings, changing from older to younger families, just being resistant to change, etc.) 2) Current owners/landlords who gain a lot of wealth in the short to medium term by preventing development due to increasing home prices and rents (high demand low supply). I say short to medium term (and I think Brian would argue the same) because it definitely seems like you'd cap the long term economic well being of a city if it becomes nearly impossible to live in which is basically where the bay area is for medium and low income folks.

 

Ultimately Ann Arbor will change and it either becomes a sprawl that has a lot of unhappy commuters coming in on roads and parking situations that can't handle the numbers, or it becomes a higher population density city that has relatively affordable housing for the population as a whole within walking, biking, bus, and short drive distances from jobs. Brian would argue the later is better (I tend to agree).

aaamichfan

July 29th, 2018 at 10:42 AM ^

I definitely agree with anti-development capping the economic well-being of a city, and we can see the evidence in Ann Arbor. Prior to the early 2000s, there were no developments approved for about 30 years. We are now in a situation where many homegrown companies choose to expand in other places(and ultimately lose their Ann Arbor ties) because the limitations in Ann Arbor will actually keep them from having the necessary amount of growth.

This explains why Ann Arbor doesn't have many residents nowadays who are in the "post college but not settled down with children age group(generally like 26-34ish and downtown seems like it is still dominated by a bunch of crusty old hippies. If you compare Ann Arbor to similar peers like Madison Wisconsin, who embraced development earlier it's quite a revelation. Madison obviously has some sprawl nowadays, but a homegrown tech company like Epic Systems(which how has 10,000 employees most of which are high paying jobs) decided to build a campus just outside of the city rather than opening offices in Austin and Silicon Valley(which would have happened to a company similar to them in Ann Arbor). 

Basically, I'm saying that Ann Arbor can't allow itself to miss another economic cycle of growth because they don't want to approve housing. Especially because it's easy to see the obvious benefits around you.

Brodie

August 5th, 2018 at 10:59 PM ^

Yeah, this is very real. As one half of a couple in that age bracket, we are being pushed to consider other cities (likely Chicago or Boston) as my SO's career is too poorly represented in the local area to really offer much growth potential. We'd like to say we would return to Ann Arbor when we are ready for kids, but it just doesn't seem realistic in a city where 900 sq ft ranches sell for over $300k. We will move regardless, but if nothing changes we won't come back and the future equivalents of us will leave much sooner. 

Steve-a-wolverine-o

July 29th, 2018 at 11:16 PM ^

I’ve found these AA articles interesting mainly due to the discussion of the problem/opputunity that faces many urban-lite areas right now. I lived in AA for four years as a student including two summers and then in San Francisco for 11 years.  SF is a nightmare right now. The sprawl is so splintered due to mountains and water that leaving town on a Friday afternoon in the summer is four hours of traffic for 100 miles, I am not even joking.  Also, I was busting my ass at a job with responsibility out the ying yang, taking on more and more stress, and as I climbed in my career and made healthy wages, my lifestyle went the opposite direction because even with wage growth and promotions, I couldn’t keep up with the housing market, so at the end of my Bay Area tour, I’m living in Oakland in a house with bars on the windows and a drive by on my block. So much for sacrificing my time for the professional hustle. No thanks. And no disrespect to Oakland, I’d move back there in a heartbeat if I were to return to the Bay Area because SF is filled with work-aholic lawyers and the big tech rich. 

kehnonymous

July 28th, 2018 at 5:09 PM ^

Brian -

In a vaccuum, would you prefer Ginyard or Hughes for Ward 1?  I assume that Hughes was included as a footnote since he is nominally running but has no realistic shot over the two more well-known candidates?  Was your endorsment of Ginyard mostly on the basis of Most Probably Not Hayner Warm Body?

MGoBender

July 28th, 2018 at 5:36 PM ^

I'm in ward 2...... these ward 1 candidates are embarrassing... is there any chance they lose in the general?  (No?  I'll show myself out...)  But seriously, would an independent/republican candidate be a pro-development candidate?  If so, I would be all about supporting that candidate.  Their right-wingness doesn't really change anything in a superly-majority dem council.  Pro-dev = pro-ann arobr future, regardless of party.

Yooper

July 28th, 2018 at 9:41 PM ^

Somebody forgot to tell wolverineswire.com about the “no football content on Saturday if you are a no fee site” rule.  For those interested in information about one of the most important recruiting events of the year just look to the Message Board.