On November 17th, the Council agenda includes (for the second time) two agenda items related to public support for a private development at State and Eisenhower. These items appeared previously on the November 6th Council agenda.
DS-1 (25-1847) Resolution to Approve a Brownfield Plan for the Arbor South Project – 2845 South State Street
DS-2 (25-1846) Resolution to Approve a Public-Private Development Agreement for the Arbor South Project and Authorize the Purchase of up to Three Parking Structures Subject to Availability of Funding (8 Votes Required)
In anticipation of an expected vote on November 6th, I wrote at length about the likelihood that it would be approved, based on the fact that since November 2022, our City Council has approved virtually everything put in front of it.
https://a2elnel.com/post/the-council-that-cant-say-no-300-million-for-arbor-south/
Ahead of that meeting, two members announced their planned absences. On the night of the meeting, two other members were absent, which meant that one item could not meet the 8 vote requirement for approval. I did not expect that the items would be delayed due to absences. I did not expect that Council would be revisiting the issue this week.
“WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE”
This week, I shared a video about why the project at State and Eisenhower is requesting so much public support and why a public-private partnership has been requested by the developer. In my video, I used a recording that had been posted online and was accessible via simple Google search. That recording was a June 2025 presentation that Jeff Hauptman (a co-developer of Arbor South) made to a room full of his investors: people who own a stake in property portfolios in and around Ann Arbor.
Many people have now seen that video and are shocked by how casually Mr Hauptman refers to the favorable zoning he was able to get approved, noting “A majority of what the investors have in this room are in this new zoning.” In the recording, Hauptman boasts about getting five planning commissioners on board with his plans for Arbor South and tells his investors:
“We’ve been at this now for about seven years, just pouring in time and money, pouring in time and money. And uh we finally reached a point where we have a majority of City Council people, all the City administrators, a bunch of County Commissioners, all really excited to see this happen. And so they’re doing what they can to help push it through.”
Hauptman emphasizes the goal of “making the land worth more than the buildings” and how this maximizes the profits for his investors.
My YouTube video was published for about two days, before it was the subject of a DMCA takedown notice. Anyone visiting the link now sees the message:
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Oxford Companies.
My use of excerpts from a recording that was publicly posted on the internet, on a topic of public importance, is clearly fair use. I am appealing that decision.
THIS WEEK’S DECISION
Two Council members – Dharma Akmon and Erica Briggs – have publicly expressed opposition to the plan for subsidy of Arbor South. Privately, a third Council member, Jenn Cornell, has emailed constituents stating that she will oppose it. The plan can be approved with the required 8 votes if every other Council Member – apart from Akmon, Briggs, and Cornell – attends tomorrow’s meeting and votes in favor of it.
It is worth noting: dissenting votes from Cornell, Briggs, and Akmon have never prevented plans for Arbor South from moving forward. City Council has approved spending a total of $350,000 to move the plan forward: $175,000 on private consultants and $175,000 on specialized legal services. This is in addition to whatever staff time was spent on it when Council authorized the City Administrator to negotiate the deal. On August 7th, Cornell was willing to switch her vote when it was needed to approve more legal services for the plan. It’s unclear whether Cornell’s stated opposition will ‘stick’ this week, when it’s most needed.
It’s also unclear how well these votes of dissent actually understand the deal. In broad strokes, the deal is bad, but in explaining her opposition, Briggs recently offered this bizarre and completely wrong detail:
“If approved, the City commits to purchasing, operating, and maintaining three public parking structures to service the Arbor South Development. The City would not own the land on which the structures are built.”
https://us3.campaign-archive.com/?u=a346f7bb4c7ddb07e6f535e4b&id=a4f1a3b7b6
The public-private partnership agreement includes very clear explanation that the City agrees to pay up to $12 million for three separate pieces of land, each described as an “unimproved Parking Structure Parcel.” Three times – for each of the three proposed City-owned parking decks – the agreement explains an arrangement for the purchase of land “plus an amount for completion and delivery of the Parking Structure.” The purchase of land and structures add up to a potential cost to the City of over $160 million.
https://a2gov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14953195&GUID=BAD4AD3C-06E8-4A8E-9E69-B63337BC50E5
Charitably, Briggs is confused. However, this begs the question: do Council Members not read the documents they are voting on? If they aren’t reading the documents, where are they getting their information? Briggs’ misstatement— minimizing the terms of the deal – is certainly a way of providing cover for colleagues who might vote in support of it.
“MAXIMIZING INVESTOR RETURNS”
All of this is important context for current conversations around updates to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Hauptman’s June presentation is remarkable in directly stating what many neighborhood activists have been pointing out for months: profit interests are the direct beneficiaries of zoning changes that increase the cost of land. Re-zoning that escalates the cost of land is a boon to investors, not the community. In more moderately priced areas of the city, residents report that investors are already knocking on doors. Current plans to aggressively up-zone large swaths of the city will inevitably increase the cost of homes as it increases the bottom line for investors. The goal is profit, not affordability.
In response to the obvious point that the free market does not lead to affordability and empowering profit interests is not “progressive,” elected leaders and others have a set of rehearsed talking points: chanting “housing crisis” over and over, while dismissing serious affordability concerns. Any challenge to the strategy of deregulation to empower investors is met with broad insults— if you do not share this City Council’s desire to promote investor interests, you are simply “anti housing,” and an example of evil, selfish “NIMBYism.”
The truth: elected leaders that posture the righteousness of their work in the interests of “affordability” are – whether they realize it or not – aggressively promoting policies to maximize investor returns.
“WISDOM FOR THE DISCUSSION”
The developer aiming to get $300 million in subsidy for the project at State and Eisenhower does not want the public to know why they need this help. Some of that was explained by Hauptman in his June presentation. Oxford Companies has already used the tactic of threatening legal action against residents who speak out. This week, my YouTube channel was targeted.
In August 2024, residents raised concerns about how many times a Mayoral-appointee on the City Planning Commission had to recuse himself from decisions that would benefit his then-employer, Oxford Companies. In response, Mayor Christopher Taylor was dismissive:
“This is how local government should work. The notion that you want to find people who have nothing to do with local land use questions. You know, I don’t truck with that. I think this is a good thing and shows a planning commission filled with professionals of engagement, experience and wisdom for the discussion.”
We have a very specific kind of “wisdom” contributing to our public discussions now: investors who have a lot to gain and Council Members who seem not to understand the issues put in front of them.