Today we are talking about the next City Council meeting, coming up Monday, September 20th. We’ll be touching on a few interesting agenda items, including drive thrus, zoning, and we saved the best for the end of the episode: a preview of the proposed renters commission.
Links we promosed:
– the 538 article about the NFL’s Rooney Rule;
– Joyce Parker’s withdrawal from the hiring process during the last city administrator hiring, expressing doubts that the city would hire a Black woman;
– info on the interim city administrator interviews, coming up Tuesday the 21st, and the meeting link in case you’d like to watch;
– and Portland’s drive-thru rule, making it against code to deny any drive-through services to cyclists.
Check out our episodes and transcripts at our website, annarboraf.com. Keep the conversation going with fellow Ann Arbor AFers on Twitter and Facebook, or catch cohost Michelle with music by women (and the occasional Council recap) on wcbn.org Tuesdays 6am-9am. And hey, if you wanted to ko-fi us a few dollars to help us with hosting, we wouldn’t say no.
Transcript
MH: Hi, and welcome to this episode of Ann Arbor AF, a podcast for folks trying to figure out what’s going on in Ann Arbor. We discuss current events in local politics and policy, governance, and other civic good times. I’m Michelle Hughes and my pronouns are she/her, I’m Jess Letaw and my pronouns are she/her, and I’m Molly Kleinman and my pronouns are she/her. We’re your cohosts to help you get informed, and get involved. It’s your city!
MK: Today we’re talking about the next City Council meeting coming up Monday September 20.
will be touching on a few interesting agenda items, including drive through zoning and stay with us because we’ve saved the best for last in this episode, a new renter Commission.
And, as always, will offer some ways for you to get involved a quick process note we record this a few days before the Council meeting, which means there will likely be some changes to the agenda between now and then so first up is Michelle.
MH: So I wanted to talk about this is not a thing that the Council will be voting on at this meeting, this is a communication from the city administrator and.
they’re at from from our acting city administrator and they’re asking for city council to repeal the Rooney rule that it put in place on.
July of 2020 and that was a rule that they put in place when they were doing the when they were starting when they were about to start searching for a new city administrator after they fired Howard Lazarus.
And that was the you know, it was in place during the during the hiring process that resulted in the hiring of.
Tom Crawford and since the city now finds itself looking to hire another city administrator the question came up again about this Rooney rule or the staff was interested in in this Rooney rule because it’s designed for.
it’s designed to increase diverse hiring in the top level positions, and it was something that originated in the nfl saying that in nfl it was like about coaches and assistant coaches and stuff like that, and they wanted to make sure that the.
That the.
candidates for these that there that they’re interviewing at least one.
candidate for these positions, who is not a white man and.
So the City Council passed a thing saying we were going to implement a rule like that for for our.
management positions which are not union and.
they’re.
So.
Staff was hesitant about it.
Even since even before the rule was passed saying that, like in the nfl.
Where where the rule originated that it has it’s been having the opposite of its intended effect.
And some nfl organizations are backing away from it and, but you know I think the.
The problems there were that like.
People got used to.
The idea that the diverse candidates were only there because of the rule and so didn’t take them as seriously as they would have otherwise.
that’s what it says in this 538 article that the city administer the interim city administer the acting city administrator links to just now, and we have a link to that.
In the description here.
But yeah so that was one of the things that.
It was kind of having the opposite effect because people weren’t taking the diverse candidates seriously.
and
There was an additional concern in the city’s case because you know where the nfl was always considering candidates, where they know exactly which who these people are who are applying the city doesn’t and.
People can’t be required to put their demographic information on their applications.
And a lot of people indeed do not and so it’s hard to pick amongst so staff is recommending that we follow our existing values based approach to diverse hiring and I have no idea what that means.
I have no idea if I have no idea how to evaluate if we are if it’s likely to be effective, because I don’t know what they are talking about.
What I do know is that in the last round of city administrator hiring we interviewed a candidate.
Joyce Parker, who was the only black candidate who got to the final round of interviews and she dropped out of the running for a city administrator speculating that.
City Council had already made up his mind that they were going to be hiring Crawford.
And that the hiring process was just about making that choice look more legitimate.
And she said that she had doubts that a black woman would be hired for the position and had doubts about the city’s commitment to di.
JL: And so, and I want to say, while she said that out loud she was not the only person who made that criticism of the process.
MH: Right and yeah like.
it’s I think that’s the type of thing that the staff, you know that that’s exactly what staff was trying, I was trying to avoid when they advised against what implementing the Rooney rule is that, like.
They didn’t want to just.
waste the time of black candidates who they didn’t intend to hire just to look more diverse.
And I don’t know I certainly am interested in.
Diversity hiring and I hope that.
We find a way to.
accomplish that goal, and it seems like maybe this Rooney rule isn’t the way to do it.
And I don’t know what this values based approach alternative is, but I hope that’s effective.
But yeah we got links to the description about.
How this happened in the nfl and.
The the live article about Joyce Parker.
And I should also mention that this is coming up.
there’s a we’re currently working on hiring an interim city administrator and that will be not somebody who not that’s not going to be our next city administrator we’re hiring someone who’s.
applying for the job on a temporary basis, knowing that they’re going to be working for us only until we found a real.
Only until we found our permanent city administrator and so the City Council is so the rest of our the rest of the podcast is going to be about the.
The meeting on Monday, the 20th of September but.
For extra bonus civic fun on Tuesday the 21st at 4pm the City Council will be interviewing two candidates for this interim City Council does interim city administrator position.
And so you know, even though they might not be with us for very long.
You know, with so much turnover in city council or in the city administrator position.
This interim city administrator might be important in setting the tone of the Organization for when the new person comes through.
And we are also including a link in the description for the live article which discusses the two candidates that will be interviewed on Tuesday.
So yeah those are things that are happening.
alright.
Alright, so next up is molly.
MK: or this, I just have a very little bit to say this is another communication, we have not yet the actual agenda and it’s the Ann arbor spark semi annual report so Ann arbor spark is this.
sort of it’s supposed to be an incubator I think is the word that they use to promote.
Innovation which i’m putting in quotation marks and economic development which i’m also putting in quotation marks and I not, this is not to.
Like pile on to spark specifically but more that I just have this real frustration with the way that cities all over the place pour money into.
Quote unquote innovation for businesses that are just going to figure out how to make money eventually anyway, for the most part, like it’s not like.
The whole world isn’t super excited about innovation and investing in businesses that are going to be techie in some way, and so I just get I just get cranky about.
The way that cities are directing resources to innovation that they could be directing to housing and food and all the other really basic needs of the humans who live here rather than.
The businesses so that’s just my little rant that I wanted to have when I saw this on the agenda next up, we are now finally getting to the actual agenda and possibly more ranting with Michelle again.
This is something that.
The City Council will actually be voting on this isn’t a consent.
Agenda see one and it’s a contract.
For bridge repair at East medical Center Dr that’s where it crosses fuller and there’s two bridges there’s one that’s on the.
river side and there’s another that’s on the railroad side, and this is what’s on the railroad side and then you’re talking about widening that from four lanes to five lanes.
and adding a turn lane the arm I don’t like this.
I don’t like.
JL: And I want to, I want to give Michelle some snaps because this was a construction contract on the consent agenda my eyes just bounced right past it and Michelle was like.
breaks.
MH: I saw the which I really appreciate it yeah.
And yeah they always talk about widening and it’s always about cars and it’s never about me.
JL: right by you can walk in.
MH: The street and the thing is like there’s a lot of important parks right near there there’s island park is fully Park, this is literally part of the border to border trail and it’s a pedestrian nightmare right now.
JL: And it’s right where the arc let’s in.
MH: Like right down there by the River yeah and you know it’s it’s it’s something that, like the border to border trail is supposed to be something that is.
Extra safe, and this is where you take your bike and it’s like you know going to get you.
All the way to fca in one direction, and all the way out, you know, to the other end of the county and the other direction and it’s supposed to be nice and protected from cars and instead we’re talking about adding more cars to it, I don’t like that.
The University is actually giving us some of the money for fixing the bridge so i’m wondering if you know, maybe they had the idea for the new lane because.
You know they run the you know run the hospital over there and they maybe had an interest in having additional traffic flow through the hospital.
JL: And this is where I want to pop in because you.
guys know I love.
Talking about dollars, and so I wanted to talk about the dollars at this resolution.
The way that it works right now is the resolution is for a cost sharing agreement between the city of Ann arbor and the University of Michigan with the city of Ann arbor actually holding the contract.
The reason that this work was occasioned is that that bridge is an extremely poor condition and so stabilization and rehabilitation was needed in order for it to be actually safe.
It seems like having talked to no one, the way that I read this is that the university said Oh, we already wanted to do.
A road widening here, since we have to do the stabilization of the bridge let’s take that opportunity to do the widening.
The way that the cost sharing your screen that works out is 69% belongs to the university 31% belongs to the city.
But if you dive in a little bit deeper what it looks like is that the university is taking 100% of the lean whitening and 50% of the bridge.
So part of the question, when we were getting ready for this episode Michelle and I were kind of passing back and forth, can the city of Ann arbor actually accomplish the bridge stabilization.
If the university decided to back out of the cost chair, and the answer is, it would be painful it’s hard to know if the city could meet that obligation, because it would almost double.
At least the number of dollars right now that the city is expected to come in.
So I have an open question about what percent of the contract belongs to the bridge stabilization and what percent belongs to lane whitening.
The action that I would ask for from Council a for sure pulled us from the consent agenda and be please don’t vote on this today because I feel like we don’t have enough information.
I absolutely agree with michelle’s hesitation around enabling road widening, especially in this location, but really anywhere, there are pedestrians here there’s so many pedestrians here and she’s right like right on the steps of the hospital, it could not be more dangerous.
But I think we need more information before we can responsibly vote on this contract.
MH: I just don’t like the you know we’re in this position of.
That like.
You know we’re getting it’s great we were getting money from the University, but I don’t like the conditions that come with it um.
MK: yeah and I, you know I having worked in the health system at one point, the the driving around there is is genuinely vile parking you’re on there is genuinely vile and.
Many, many, many of the people who work in the health system are just in a constant low simmering rage about.
The traffic and parking and then transportation situation in general, because buses there aren’t great and there are no other options there’s there’s lots of parking rides.
But for folks who are already driving along way that it’s tough in your people are working unusual shifts in the health system and, of course, over the last 18 months they’ve been incredibly strained.
And so I my perspective on this is like oh yeah they really they really want that lane they really think it’s going to help with traffic flow, everyone is already mad all the time about getting around this area, I still don’t think that we should be widening anything for cars anywhere.
MH: It doesn’t it never helps with traffic flow as much as people think it’s going to end.
JL: The opposite right and we know like there’s so much data on traffic that the more lanes, you have the more traffic, you have it’s called induced demand and it’s not a mystery.
yeah.
MH: And I would, I would just say like why don’t we just build some more housing and towns hospital employees aren’t having a drive in from all over the place.
That would be my solution it’s a more long term solution, but in in light of the climate crisis, I think it’s the more responsible solution, then widening car lanes.
JL: hundred percent and for what it’s worth if I were to say what a success look like in this.
A the lean whitening doesn’t happen and be the university remains a cost share partner in the bridge stabilization process, even though it’s just outside of the hospital the infrastructure belongs to the city.
But cost sharing, there is the right thing to do, even if it’s not 5050 which it should be, but even if it’s not if the university’s participation makes that viable, I think that that makes them a good partner to the city in a way that matters.
MH: Okay let’s kick this over to molly now for another different thing.
MK: yeah, this is another short one actually we talked about it at the last meeting the personal mobility vehicle ordinance, this is the change to expand our definition of.
bikes to include scooters and other kinds of devices and the changing the way we regulate the bike lanes and sidewalks so that they encompass more modes.
The ordinance passed it first reading at the last meeting so now there’s a public hearing and a second reading of the ordinance.
I expect that it will pass it is good yay scooters that’s pretty much all i’ve got to say on this one, but i’m i’m pleased to see that we’re almost almost to the finish line with this one.
And back to you, Michelle This is like the pink on me and Michelle show that.
we’re.
All just headlining for.
right back to you.
MH: yeah there’s a thing on the agenda that’s an ordinance at first reading so City Council will vote on it there’s not going to be a specific public hearing about it, but the passes it will be have a public hearing next time, and this is about.
The permitted uses of the sea to be commercial zone it’s a commercial zone that’s close to downtown and and it’s a commercial zone that can be accessed on what and it’s.
there’s a whole bunch of properties that have see to be zoning on them so like the buildings are already there the the.
The parcels are already there, and this is just redefining what people are allowed to do on those zones and.
What happened was somebody proposed to build a use store it like a self storage development in a sea to be zone and.
Some people bulked at that, because they were like wow that’s this is supposed to be a zone that’s close to downtown accessible by car or by foot and somebody.
Talking about building a storage facility here, which is very car car car and then you know any of the services that may have wanted to put.
Have a more pedestrian oriented presence on that parcel they’re now going to be pushed further out of town, because this very car development got very close to downtown and so that development apparently is just for reasons of its own is not going to go forward but.
there’s a proposal here, and I think it’s coming from planning Commission that maybe we should just not allow storage facilities like that to be built in see to be zones and so that’s the proposal.
On the agenda.
This time and I like it.
JL: And let it be known that episode number of whatever the heck we’re on, we have now minted car car car as an adjective we don’t like this because it’s car car car it’s.
MH: Very car car car.
MK: yeah.
MH: let’s say that I wrote in the notes, but I didn’t.
JL: know if I actually write out loud and I love that.
MH: Excellent all right.
Now let’s ping pong back over to molly.
MK: Yes, and this one, I have a bit more to say about it’s also sort of about car car car and how we feel about it, so this is see a question mark, it was added late enough that it’s not quite.
Like slotted into the agenda, yet, but it’s about updating the non discrimination ordinance to amend it to include mode of transportation.
So the story here is that there are some drive through services around the city that do not allow you to use them if you’re not driving a car.
And this includes things like drive through covert testing some really important access access things right now that you have to have a car to to use the businesses are saying.
They turn you away if you come up on foot around like.
And this happened recently, like in the last week or two, and someone tweeted about it, they needed a covert test they wouldn’t get they don’t have a car, they had to go get an uber or get a.
You know rent a car and find someone to drive them so that you get a coven test and then people were tweeting about like we should make we ought to make a law like we should change it, so that.
Anyone can use the drive thru and councilmember griswold hopped into the Twitter thread and said oh i’m going to i’m going to fix this, and the result is this ordinance.
which would put or ordinance amendment that would put into the anti discrimination code of the city that you’re not allowed to discriminate and providing services by mode of transportation.
So this was a little bit of this was another little journey for me i’m going to take you all on my journey again.
My first reaction was that I am very uncomfortable with putting putting this into the non discrimination ordinance.
Like it just did not feel like the right fit it belongs in the zoning code, there are other cities, who have done this who’ve said, you must serve people in the drive thru even if they’re not driving portland has done this portland has it in their zoning code.
So that was step one was just this feeling of like this doesn’t feel this feels wrong and it reminds me of.
A thing i’ve actually heard councilmember grizzled say, which is that diversity of opinion is the kind of diversity, and so, when we talk about.
Diverse representation on transportation Commission, for example, we need to make sure that that diverse those that diversity of perspectives includes people who primarily drive.
People who primarily drive are not discriminated against in this country and also they’re not a targeted class so that felt like I just got my hackles up.
But then I thought about it a little more.
And we do in fact live in this very car oriented culture, our infrastructure, our legal code, everything is designed in ways that favors drivers and that you could argue discriminates against.
The safety, the rights, the livelihood the happiness, the freedom of people who get around not in a car so maybe this is an expensive but acceptable way to think about discrimination and non discrimination I just mentioned ya gotta jump in.
JL: Sure i’ll so as molly was going through her journey on this resolution, I was thinking through it, too, and she and I had different initial reactions to it, she had a very high uber factor, and I was just like oh that’s interesting not what I would have thought that interesting.
Part of the reason for that is there is a part of our non discrimination code that says, you cannot discriminate that in housing.
against people based on source of income, and so my question to molly was are you feeling an uber factor, because this isn’t central to identity or genuine, generally speaking, a targeted class.
Because if that’s the case, we already have you know this in place the source of income thing which means, if you are paying for your rent out of student loans or out of the section eight voucher or.
Your landlord doesn’t know how you’re paying for it like that’s okay you’re not allowed to discriminate against people for that, but that’s not an identity marker.
And yet that’s something i’m very comfortable that lives under the non discrimination code, and so I asked molly about that is it because it’s you know.
Essentially, a choice or a lifestyle, as opposed to I actually don’t like lifestyle i’ll figure out a good word after we record i’m sure, but.
it’s a it’s a way that you choose to live your life as opposed to a way that you like intrinsically are so that was that was my part of molly’s journey right.
MK: And then I kept digging because I still felt icky and I wanted to see if I could really understand what was going on, and so I went and I read.
The actual language of the amendment which defines it as a little bit in the definition of discrimination to say.
Discrimination also includes the denial of services at a drive through facility based on mode of transportation.
Including pedestrian access for the use of a personal mobility to vehicle.
But it is mode neutral, which is how these things kind of have to be right, but if it’s mode neutral, then.
We can use this to say that you can’t just have a trail that’s only for bikes you have to let cars there to you can’t discriminate against drivers of cars.
that’s what happens when this is mode neutral and I am super not okay with anything that would open the door to an argument, where.
Drivers drivers are arguing that they’re being discriminated against, you can the same way that you can’t be racist against white people you can’t discriminate against drivers in a country in a state that is so thoroughly built.
For the convenience and comfort of drivers above everyone else so but at that point, I think, just came over to my side, and I think now we’re on the same side.
Is that like yes absolutely, we should make businesses serve you at a drive through even if you’re not in a car.
But i’m super uncomfortable with doing it in the non discrimination ordinance and I think it would be much better in zoning, which is how other cities have done it and which doesn’t open up all of these.
cans of worms that i’m super uncomfortable so this just this felt.
Under baked I watched it all happen over Twitter this happened to someone i’m going to fix it and then with it like within days there’s this it, you know got added to the Council agenda and i’m glad.
That councilmember griswold felt a sense of urgency about fixing this in this time when we’re living in a pandemic.
And lots of people need to get coven tests and not everyone has a car, but I, I hope, I hope that that she will consider changing the the method of of requiring service for people outside of cars.
JL: Yes, and I do want to clarify it so molly did win me over to her side in the sense that, yes, we should.
We should be prioritizing the safety and kind of acknowledgement of the the presence of cyclists and pedestrians.
i’m still not totally sold, that this has to be outside of the non discrimination ordinance in order for it to have to be credible, or whatever like I i’m actually code location neutral.
I do think that the mode neutrality, should be taken out of it absolutely that’s super problematic.
MH: Okay.
Those suggested was an example that it should it should protect pedestrians and bicyclists but it doesn’t yeah it is, it is a little suspicious that like.
I said it’s it could be interpreted that that is the intent of the law, and so, if someone tries to like enforce the law, the other way, then it might not succeed in a court of law but yeah can of worms that’s.
MK: There are people hanging out on next door and in the Ann arbor Facebook groups, who I think would be thrilled to sue the city.
driver discrimination.
Right yeah and.
We that would be such an own goal like we don’t have to do that, we could just put it in the zoning code so yeah.
I think that about covers my feelings on this ah, and so now and pleased to present jess Lisa on the renders Commission.
JL: Oh, the grand finale of a good episode you guys alright, so let me contextualize a little bit why i’m excited about this to come forward.
First of all, i’ve been asking for for years, who have you been asking just mostly the ether I just say in random conversation to anyone who will listen I think in our should have a renters Commission.
I am a renter I have been one my entire life I have been one my entire time living in Ann arbor.
i’ve lived in large apartment complexes I lived in duplexes I currently live in a single families own don’t have a duplex so I could have a neighbor like living in my garage if that happened I wish it did.
I care about this, because it is really hard for renters to know what’s going on in the city.
it’s hard for us to find the information it’s hard for us to.
act on the information and it’s really hard for us.
To.
be taken seriously, I can’t state strongly enough how strong be anti renter biases it starts as neutral Comments like.
When people give public comment and meeting say i’m a homeowner in Ward X and I care about this because I own my home like that happens.
Probably every city council meeting definitely every planning Commission meeting somebody says, I care about this and you know that I do because I own.
It also happens all the time in ordinances that pertain to renters.
Because we see the language renters can’t be trusted to upkeep their property they can’t be trusted to manage noise levels, they can’t be trusted to xyz so we have to manage renters, and this is not new.
This part of public discourse has been present very, very present at least since the 1960s i’ve seen examples going back as far as the 1920s and there’s probably some before that, but.
Despite how it sounds right now I don’t actually often read newspaper articles from the 1890s only occasionally.
So all of that to say renters are incredibly disempowered when it comes to civic engagement thinking about the city, creating a mechanism to bring us in to listen.
And to actually offer and share power is personally meaningful but it it literally gives me goosebumps about how this can improve the operations and the outcomes for our city so that’s why I care.
To get to what we’re actually talking about Council member Regina and several co sponsors have brought forward a resolution recommending the establishment of a renters Commission.
travis Regina posted a statement on Facebook saying i’ll be asking City Council to support this resolution unnecessary and important step towards getting our cities renters can make up a majority of our residents.
A real voice in their government once established this body comprised of and led by renters will be able to thoughtfully address issues and City policy and law that impact the broader rental community.
I like the resolution it does a good job of defining who is going to be on the Commission they’re both voting and non voting members, it seems fairly large and unwilling to me, there are right now, as defined 11 voting and for non voting members.
That seems like a lot, especially for renters where we’re probably going to see a higher than average turnover and attrition than other commissions.
But I think it’s a great first start and honestly better to start larger than small like that’s that’s fine.
i’m interested in some of the whereas is where it calls out renters makeup almost 53% of the city’s household.
renters are unusually what’s called rent burden which is to say, we typically pay higher than economic those practices say that we should.
In terms of the proportion of our housing costs to our income so attending to equity in terms of renters as attending to the equity of the city as a whole, I think that it could go a little bit further.
The warehouses in terms of calling on the black lives matter resolution from last summer from July of 2020 which specifically named housing, as well as policing in.
ways that the city could continue to affirm that black lives matter, so I think that this resolution could has a very natural resonance with that resolution, I think that it could also draw on the 2017.
The city’s 2017 affirmatively furthering fair housing survey and all in saying that for.
is just you know the good governance practice of making sure that we’re continuing to work towards our goals by drawing on password we have really robust password identifying that we need better housing, work in the city and renters Commission as part of that.
We have, as far as I can tell two examples in the country that we can point to the city of Seattle and the county in which it resides King county seattle’s was conceived of in 2017 and implemented, I believe in.
King county established there’s in 2019 and first started meetings in 2021 those two are both based off of an example in vancouver’s.
Excuse me in Vancouver which was established in 2014 so this whole concept is relatively new, and I say great Ann arbor it’s not really have.
a reputation for being on the despite what we love to tell ourselves of being on the leading edge of civic innovation sorry molly I know that’s not your favorite word civic advancement and I love to see Ann arbor on the front end of something like.
This we are kind of at the same stage as San Antonio Texas that city started talking about a potential orange renters Commission back in January of 2020.
they’ve done a Community engagement survey around it, I have not seen the results of those survey that survey reported out, even though it concluded last fall.
And i’m unclear, the status of that Commission whether it’s going to move forward, but there seems to be some kind of positive movement around that.
i’m going to take a breath, because then you guys can see i’m really excited and see what you’d like to say or ask just kind of open the floor.
MK: there’s one question that I have about this, I.
I read the list of all of the different people who are.
Who they’re aiming to have represented on the Commission and I was amused slash surprised to see two non voting seats for landlords.
And, on the one hand i’m glad that they’re non voting on the other hand, i’m curious about the inclusion of landlords like at all like that i’m I wonder what is that is that standard.
what’s going on with the landlords on the renters Commission.
JL: that’s a really good question so based on I read, not only the kind of city pages about the retro conditions and other cities, but also the news articles around the time.
And 100% of the hottest flash points around the creation of the commission’s after their creation, the conversation changed, but in the creation number one flashpoint was should landlords be at the table.
i’m interested to see the inclusion of non voting Members here because Seattle considered it and said no.
King considered it and said no San Antonio has considered it and even though they haven’t created their rhetoric Commission have said no.
Because all three of those municipalities, and I believe Vancouver did as well, have identified that like cars, like drivers.
landlords and property owners are they’re not just prioritize the system is built for them it’s just built for them, and so, including them it’s a little bit like inviting cats to a mouse thanksgiving like you’re just not going to get the result that you want.
MK: Right yeah.
MH: too far too far ahead in our civic civic innovation here.
JL: Right, so my I wonder, and I haven’t asked councilmember Regina about this, but I wonder if it’s proactive inclusion was to reduce the likelihood of that fight there’s already been pushed back.
about whether this Commission even needs to be created, yes, it does we’re not talking about it, yes, but the inclusion of non voting members is possibly a peace offering to say hey you can show up to the meetings that’s okay.
MK: yeah, but they can show up to meetings anyway.
JL: They can make their public they can, and they will.
MK: Know they’re very adept at because we hear them all the time at City Council meetings and I just I really worried about their ability to suck up all the oxygen on on the Commission, even when they’re not the voting members, it just.
MH: It because they’re gonna be getting paid to be there, like what the big landlords can hire someone to show up there and.
MK: yeah and be disrupt like yeah I don’t know I, it seems, it seems not great, to me, I understand that sort of preemptive thing but it’s i’m not a fan of compromising before you have to when it comes to policy like this.
JL: And I also note, there was a really I think unintentionally funny article in San Antonio which was talking about the Community engagement, so the idea behind the renter’s Commission was initiated by one of their Council members.
And he took the initiative to have some public conversations.
And then the city in identifying, this is a real need followed suit and it became part of the city’s efforts.
When Council member trevino was reporting out about it, he said yeah it’s so weird in our Community engagement around the renters Commission, it was only landlords and property owners who showed up to the meeting.
thereby making the point and I don’t even think he was trying to be funny it was funny, though.
well.
So I am in agreement, I do not think that those two even non voting Members need a seat at the table, because.
They will show up and there’ll be paid to do it, even if they don’t have a non voting seat so go take that one off, otherwise I think that this is a great resolution i’m excited to see Ann arbor undertake this.
My open questions are.
How this is going to interact with the housing and human services advisory board at the county I do see that there is going to be one permanent non voting Member appointed.
From hhs ag so possibly just having those to interact, in that way is fine i’m curious of hhs maybe is going to also have an appointed Member from the renters Commission, I would like to see that.
I do like that there’s kind of that interaction between this which would be a city Commission and that which is a county board.
I am also interested in how the city expects to recruit from this because putting a link on the city website.
And blasting it out on Facebook is not going to do it it’s just not first of all they’re not going to get applications, and second, of all.
The ones that they do are going to be it’s extremely small and number really and truly so if they’re looking to fill 11 seats.
Honestly, I think they’re going to struggle to get it so i’m curious to know what their outreach efforts are expected to be.
i’m also curious to know how the city and how the folks who are leading the creation of this Commission expect to educate the Commissioners.
The whole reason that this is being created is that it is difficult for renters to do with this podcast encourages which is get informed and get involved.
If we’re saying hey we’re going to create a renters Commission show up once a month on Tuesdays will hear you.
But then we don’t take the opportunity to educate them about the different policies being considered about the reasons behind those policies, about how they interact.
i’m thinking a lot about how transportation and housing typically go hand in hand and often those in terms of public conversations are kind of considered in silos if we’re just handing renters.
eviction policy or the early leasing ordinance that the city just passed or any number of types of policies that this Commission could consider.
But we’re not educating them about the context, from which those policies come or where they could go.
It is the worst possible kind of token that I can imagine we have asked them to show up, so we can say they showed up, but we have not empowered them to be successful, so i’m very curious about what that’s going to look like.
MK: it’s a really good point I mean I one thing that I have learned from my experience being on transportation Commission is that the the people who staff these commission’s are on the public engagement team for the city.
I going into it sort of assumed the transportation Commission would have had transportation staff for an all the roles.
That staff play on the on the Commission and we do have.
Some transportation staff, but our liaison the person who I, as Chair work with most directly.
Who does do a lot of that kind of sort of behind the scenes educating and making sure that our agenda includes the things it should it should she’s a public engagement expert and.
That, I think it shows, and how well the Commission has run and I hope that.
I assume that that’s sort of the standard and that’s my understanding is that that’s the standard and so that does give me some hope that.
At least some of the staff on the ground, doing the work are going to be equipped to do what you’re talking about, but I agree a lot of it’s going to come at like at the policy level.
JL: yeah for sure, and I go ahead and show.
MH: All I do remember that the at the last City Council meeting say reorganized the org chart so that, when we we were planning on hiring a.
Public outreach specialist and we’re also planning on hiring that diversity equity and inclusion specialist and they reorganized the org chart so that the.
Public engagement specialist will be reporting directly to the Di specialist so.
Maybe there, maybe that’ll be helpful, but I don’t know you know.
JL: Maybe that will be.
MH: A ways away before they have like meaningful.
New fancy public public engagement methods that will reach diverse people.
JL: that’s true and that actually speaks to another question that I had so I was curious how this is going to interact with hhs ag.
i’m also curious how this is going to act with the county’s existing racial equity office and our developing I don’t know that ours is a racial equity office I think it’s a diversity equity and inclusion office to remember, Michelle yeah.
yeah so i’m hoping that there is a proactive explicit relationship there, and if it’s staffed by the Community engagement person.
Under dei, then I think that we’ve accomplished that handily and again this isn’t a proactive criticism it’s a proactive hope that this is something that we’re thinking about at the outset and not after 12 or 24 months of.
i’ll just say it for Ann arbor well intentioned white people getting it wrong.
MK: well intentioned right people are well intentioned white people getting it wrong feels like.
JL: Its own podcast.
So you guys i’m excited excited excited relieved hopeful anxious excited about our renters Commission.
MH: And that’s it for this episode of Ann Arbor AF.
Come check out our episodes and transcripts at our website, annarboraf.com. Keep the conversation going with fellow Ann Arbor AFers on Twitter at the a2council hashtag and Facebook in the Ann Arbor Humans Who Wonk group, and catch cohost Michelle’s radio show on wcbn.org Tuesdays 6am-9am. It’s mostly music made by women, but also the occasional Council recap. And hey, if you wanted to send us a few dollars at ko-fi.com/annarboraf to help us with hosting, we always appreciate it.
We’re your cohosts Molly Kleinman, Jess Letaw, and myself, Michelle Hughes; and thanks to producer Jack Jennings. Theme music “I dunno” by grapes. You can reach us by email at annarborafpod@gmail.com. Get informed, then get involved. It’s your city!