by P.D. Lesko

FROM SETBACKS TO obscure acronyms such as D-1 and D-2, it might be tough to understand how 11 adults could possibly have anything to snipe at each other about while discussing zoning regulations. However, on Jan. 5, the members of Ann Arbor City Council did just that and then some. Ward 3 Council member Julie Grand found the energy to insult and offend the members of the public who had come out in sub-zero weather to share their opinions on downtown development. Of course, it wasn’t only the public at whom Grand sniped.

Ward 4 Council member Graydon Krapohl, a Council newbie who walked unopposed into his seat without doing a scrap of public debate or participation in public forums, used up his speaking turns arguing with his Ward 4 counterpart Jack Eaton about whether offering amendments to resolutions before Council qualified as making policy “on the fly.”

Krapohl, a military man, is obviously accustomed to following orders, and he proffered the opinion that when advisory boards  populated by unelected political appointees give recommendations, Council is duty bound to take those marching orders and, well, march. In the opinions of Krapohl and several other Council members who’d served on city boards and commissions for extended periods having their advice treated as advisory, it’s the tail that should wag the dog.

Yes, zoning regulations might be stultifying but the interpersonal dynamics on City Council bring to mind the 1957 film “12 Angry Men,” with far too many bombastic, irascible Juror #3s.  The new mayor, prone to fustian speeches, floats airily above the drama. There’s the rampant “mansplaining.” That word is defined as “to explain something to someone, typically a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.”

Voters elected three “new urbanists,” the nexus between architecture and politics. Voters also elected those who would call the idea that Ann Arbor should embrace new urbanism before roads are repaved, infrastructure improved and services funded so much nonsense and bunkum. New urbanism proponents want to give people many choices for living an urban lifestyle in sustainable, convenient and enjoyable places, while providing the solutions to peak oil and climate change.

Critics have portrayed new urbanism as a worrisome threat — a grim combination of rail transit boondoggles, neighborhood densification, urban-growth boundaries, traffic “calming,” and other expensive, intrusive planning policies.

In reality, the divide on City Council is the result of a leadership vacuum. We have experienced decade-long neglect of the city’s roads, growing city employee pension/health care deficit and the crumbling of our sanitary/storm water sewer systems. It’s a mistake that’s going to cost taxpayers close to $1 billion dollars at some point or other to fix.

The truth is that funding services and improving infrastructure are not incompatible with new urbanism. Services are at the heart of new urbanism. The problem is that for the past 14 years, Ann Arbor has elected local officials who have allowed City Administrators (and encouraged them) to pit parks funding against funding for the planning department. Voters have stayed away from the polls even as those whom they elected skimmed from services to pay for studies, consultants and developer subsidies related to their new urbanism dreams.

These same elected officials have used cherry-picked public safety data to paint a picture whereby there are fewer (in number) crimes in order to slash the number of patrol officers. Meanwhile, over 9,000 victims whose crimes remain open since 2011 wait for justice. Police are one of taxpayers’ single largest expenses.

The Jan. 5 Council meeting highlighted the problem with electing stiff-necked ideologues who find compromise difficult. They hold the public in contempt. It might be amusing to watch, but the consequences for taxpayers are enormous. The people who spoke at the public meetings on Jan. 5 are not afraid of tall buildings. They question the judgement of local elected officials who insist that it’s good public process to allow the tail to wag the dog.