In the last three years, the city government of Ann Arbor has performed in choreographed meetings with scripted remarks and unanimity. Since the election of a City Council supported by all of the same special interests, large donors, and political action committees, whole agendas are approved without meaningful debate.
Since November 2022, profit interest and public interest have been one and the same. Current leaders – theoretically representing the community interest – consistently vote in support of whatever best meets the needs of property investors, specifically. In just three years, developers have requested fourteen rezonings— some were controversial and some were not. Every request from a developer is not just approved, but approved unanimously.
Unelected members of the City Planning commission – appointed by the Mayor – are similarly deferential to capital and profit interests. In 2020, the mayor appointed a commissioner who managed the portfolio of one of the largest property investors in town: Oxford Companies. While employed by Oxford, that commissioner had to recuse himself from more than twenty votes because so many decisions of that body – ordinance amendments and rezonings – were directly requested by or would directly enrich his employer. All of Oxford’s requests and other favorable amendments have been approved unanimously by City Council. The CEO of Oxford Companies, Jeffrey Hauptman, is a consistent campaign donor, giving thousands of dollars to current members of City Council and the Mayor.
This week, in an unusual Thursday meeting – rescheduled due to a special election – City Council will vote on two agenda items, both related to a very large request from Oxford Companies. This request is much bigger than a rezoning or ordinance amendment.
PUBLIC SUBSIDY OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
Oxford Companies and its partner Crawford Hoying are asking the City to divert over $300 million in projected tax dollars over 30 years to support private development at State and Eisenhower. The money will fund parking decks at a project called “Arbor South.”
DC-1 (25-1847) Resolution to Approve a Brownfield Plan for the Arbor South Project – 2845 South State Street
A proposed public-private partnership calls for the City to issue over $160 million in bonds to buy, maintain, and operate City-owned parking decks. Those decks will meet the needs of residents and visitors to Arbor South— the arrangement spares the developer the risk of investing in those decks and the future cost of paying taxes on those decks.
DC-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)
Approval of the Arbor South public-private partnership agreement requires eight votes. The higher vote threshold is necessary because the agreement authorizes the purchase of property from the developers for the parking decks. The resolution offers no price for what the property or the decks will cost, but simply refers to “subject to availability of funding.” A detailed purchase agreement will not be voted on by Council and budgeting for the purchase could happen with a simple majority vote.
In April 2022, the property at Arbor South was rezoned to “transit corridor development,” a zoning district meant to reduce reliance on cars and encourage walking, biking, and use of public transit. In the last year, significant time and money has been spent on figuring out how the City can use tax dollars to fund parking decks at this location. Repeatedly, Council has given direction to City staff to negotiate terms and approved payments to consultants and attorneys crunching numbers for the deal.
The plan to subsidize private development in this way should never have moved forward at all. The idea to fund parking decks in an area specifically zoned for “transit oriented development” should never have survived multiple votes of Council. The story of how it did is the story of how the current City Council votes unanimously nearly all of the time and – even when it doesn’t – the body approves virtually everything put in front of them.
ALL AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED
Since November 2022, over 98% of City Council votes have been unanimous. Dissent is rare and almost never impacts the result. In the last three years, City Council has voted on well over a thousand agenda items plus other procedural motions (amendments, postponements). Of those, only fifteen votes have resulted in “defeat.” Nearly all of these “defeats” were tedious and non-substantive amendments to agenda items— after a failed amendment, each agenda item was approved unanimously. In three years, the only agenda items that this Council has wholly rejected:
Resolution calling for more public process regarding sale of City-owned property (“Kline Lot”)
https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-council-october-16-2023/
Two contracts that would have led to expansion of the City airport
https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-council-december-2-2024/
Two resolutions to fund and support next steps toward establishing a public power utility
https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-council-march-3-2025/
Note that none of the topics above challenge the interests of property investors. In defeating the resolution regarding the Kline lot, Council rejected more transparency: a majority of City Council took a stand in defending a faster, behind-the-scenes process to sell public property to private investors.
Defenders of this Council have suggested that a meaningful sub-set of Council members reliably offer dissent and vote in a principled way. In short: they do not. Council Members offer dissent without intending it to have any impact on the result.
Regarding City-subsidy of the private development at Arbor South, seven members of Council have consistently voted in support of a generous campaign donor. Four members of Council have voted at least once in opposition: Council Members Ayesha Ghazi-Edwin, Jenn Cornell, Erica Briggs, and Dharma Akmon, However, at no point did their votes of dissent prevent the proposal from moving forward. Council Member Ghazi Edwin voted once in opposition to the plan, reacting to a letter from the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (that letter outlines concerns about the diversion of tax dollars), but last month, Ghazi Edwin voted in support of more funding for lawyers to craft the deal. Council Member Cornell twice voted against the plan, but when her dissent would have defeated a budget amendment for the project, she willingly changed her vote (the Mayor graciously thanked her).
To see that vote and a summary of other dissenting votes on Arbor South, watch the A2Council Update video for August 7, 2025, time stamp 5:13
https://youtu.be/AvjSGwXimNE&t=313
PREDICTIONS
For the last three years, dissent has existed in a specific context: all members expecting that their votes will not derail or otherwise block the issue they theoretically oppose. Split votes highlight how every elected representative knows the ultimate result ahead of time. Members do not respond or react to each other in debate and those in disagreement make no effort to persuade colleagues. Each member simply takes turns reading pre-written scripts for a public show of “dissent.”
The public-private partnership in support of Arbor South will almost certainly be approved with the eight votes required. Only two members of Council (Briggs and Akmon) have voted consistently in opposition to the plan, knowing that their votes would make no difference. Neither will be present this week. In light of those absences, the public might not even see the performance of scripted debate and dissent.