STATEMENT FROM THE “VOTE NO ON PROPOSALS A AND B” BALLOT COMMITTEE

The campaign to pass Proposals A and B is a combination of disinformation, misrepresentations and distortions.

In a recent blog post, as reported by Mlive.com on July 14th, Ann Arbor District Library (AADL) Director Eli Neiburger bemoaned what he called “a lot of disinformation” about Proposals A and B “circulating on social media.” The reality is that the principal sources of disinformation in this campaign are the City of Ann Arbor and the AADL.

Neiburger doesn’t quote any of the claimed disinformation or identify any sources. Instead, he says “we’ve been hearing from a lot of patrons that they’re confused by what they’re hearing from friends and neighbors or seeing online.” He does not even claim, let alone demonstrate, that any of the purported “disinformation” comes from anyone associated with the opponents of the two proposals.

By contrast, the disinformation from the City and the AADL is clear and documented. It starts with the ballot language of Proposal A. The language says that Proposal A amends the City Charter to allow the City to sell its entire interest in the Library Lot property to the AADL for “the purpose of building a mixed-use development that includes additional library services, housing, retail and programmable open public space." The quoted ballot language is not included in the actual Charter amendment text, and that's the only thing that counts. The ballot language, itself, is of absolutely no force or effect.

A little history is helpful here. Prior to 2008, the Charter allowed City real estate to be sold upon the vote of eight Councilmembers. A proposal had emerged to sell or “repurpose” city parkland – the Huron Hills Golf Course. A group of citizens mounted a petition drive to put a Charter amendment on the ballot that would require a vote of the people to sell any parkland. The amendment passed with 84% of the vote in the November 2008 election and became Charter Section 14.3(b).

The one and only thing that Proposal A actually does is to carve out an exception to that prohibition on selling City parkland without a vote of the people. It allows the City, by a vote of Council only, to sell one particular piece of parkland (the Library Lot) to one, and only one, identified purchaser – the Library. That’s it. Nothing more. The proponents of Proposal A want to weaken the citizen-initiated restriction on selling city parkland enacted just 17 years ago.

A vote for Proposal A does not ensure that any of the positive-sounding things recited in the ballot language will happen.

If Proposal A is misleading by promising things to voters that may never happen, Proposal B is misleading by not telling voters what is sure to happen, if it passes. All it says is “Shall Section 1.4 of the City Charter, currently titled Center of the City, be repealed?” There is no hint that the provision to be repealed has something to do with developing a new park, or that the section to be repealed was added to the Charter by public vote just seven years ago.

This attempt to mislead voters is nothing new. We have seen it all before, in 2018, and with some of the same set of characters. In that year, a group of citizens succeeded in gathering over 6,000 petition signatures to put on the ballot a Charter amendment that mandated that the City-owned Library Lot property was to remain as City property permanently and “developed as an urban central park and civic center commons…”

A bare majority of Councilmembers, 6 of 11, opposed the amendment, preferring a private high-rise development on the site. Nevertheless, on June 18, 2018, the Council unanimously approved ballot language for the amendment. It was short, with neutral language provided by the City Clerk.

Less than three weeks later, on July 2, 2018, however, the Council completely reversed course. The six Councilmembers opposed to the amendment voted to replace the Clerk’s neutral language with its own. It was a four-paragraph, 228-word litany of reasons why voters should reject the amendment. It stated that the totally private development planned for the site would be “a private mixed-use development including retail, office space, a hotel, residential, units, and a 12,000 square-foot public plaza.” Sound familiar?

The totally biased ballot language was legally challenged by the citizens group that put the amendment on the ballot. The case went to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Less than 48 hours after it got the case, the Court issued its ruling finding that the replacement caption was illegal under state election law. It ordered that the second caption language was to be stricken from the ballot and the Clerk’s original language restored.

The amendment passed by 26,746 “yes” votes to 23,618 “no” votes. From the 2018 election to the present day, opponents of the park amendment try to denigrate that victory by calling it a “narrow margin.” The 6.2% victory margin was a landslide compared to the average popular vote margin for the winning candidate in the last seven Presidential elections, which is 2.4%.

This election isn’t really about a new library. It’s about Councilmembers who don’t share the voters’ view that preserving some open space in the downtown is important. Proposals A and B are both designed to do the same thing – take away controls on disposing of city parkland which were put in the Charter by citizen petition drives and approved by the voters. City Council is attempting to use popular affection for the Library to further its high-density-at-all-costs development plans.

Thousands of new residents have been added to the downtown in recent years. Thousands more will be added to the area around the Library. The City and the Library have tentatively agreed that two 180-foot buildings will be constructed on the City and Library properties. A 16-story apartment tower is nearing completion adjacent to the Library on William St. The Housing Commission has plans to build a 302-unit high-rise on the “Y Lot” across Fifth Ave. from the Library. But there are no plans for any additional open space for all these new residents.

Neiburger says the surface of the Library Lane parking structure isn’t “park land,” although he acknowledges that the 2018 Charter amendment mandates that it is be developed “as a park and commons.” That development hasn’t taken place, because of obstruction and foot-dragging by the City. Property specified in the Charter for development as a park is “parkland,” even if the development hasn’t taken place yet.

Neiburger said: “You won’t hear us call it a park, because libraries don’t operate parks…” but Proposal A’s ballot language says the property is being sold to the Library for, among other things, “programmable public open space.” By Neiburger’s reasoning, libraries can operate “public open space,” but not parks, so this isn’t a park. The City clearly views it as parkland. If it weren’t parkland, it would not be necessary to amend the 2008 Charter language that requires a vote of the people to sell parkland, which is all that Proposal A does.

Neiburger told Mlive that outdoor public space is a central component of AADL’s vision for the park. Really? Together, the City and the Library own just under 120,000 sq. ft., about 2.75 acres, of property, all of which the Library would control if Proposal A passes and the City sells its property to the Library. The AADL could pursue its “vision” of outdoor public space by devoting a quarter or a third or more of the property to park usage. It’s actual plan? Not even close.

On June 24, 2025, Library Board President Molly Kleinman publicly promised that 10,000 sq. ft. would be reserved for public open space. A few days later, she dialed that down to 6,000 sq. ft. Actual measurement of the space reveals an irregular footprint of barely 5,000 sq. ft. which would likely be reduced to comply with fire marshal access and egress requirements.

But why should voters rely on any representations that the proponents make about public open space? Neiburger notes that “part of the surface of the parking structure was designed to be made into plaza…” Has that happened? Has the City complied with the 2018 amendment that mandates “a park and commons” on top of the parking structure? No. The only thing that has been done with that space in the 13 years since the parking structure was completed is the creation of a 32-space surface parking lot on top of the 700-space parking garage.

The proponents of the Proposals have created and disseminated a number of myths about them.

Myth: Ann Arbor can’t have a new library unless Proposals A and B pass.

The proponents of A and B, the City and the Ann Arbor District Library (AADL), would have voters believe that passage of A and B are necessary to build a new library. That simply isn’t true, and they have publicly said so. Eli Neiburger, in a November 2024 public presentation and in his March 2025 presentation to the Planning Commission, stated that the AADL would build a new library on its existing property, even if the Proposals fail. In City Administrator Milton Dohoney. Jr.’s March 3, 2025 Memo to City Council, he stated that “AADL will replace their main structure regardless of Library Lot outcome.”

Myth: “Proposals A and B do not require any… zoning changes.” (AADL campaign mailing sent out about June 21, 2025.)

This is true, but laughingly misleading. The reason no zoning changes are required is that they were already completed just weeks ago. The Library’s property was rezoned by Council from Public Land (PL) to Downtown Core (D-1) - the densest zoning category in the city - on June 2, 2025, less than three weeks before the mailing went out. Council had already rezoned the Library Lot property to D-1. The entire city block is now zoned D-1, except Liberty Plaza and the historic Kempf House. D-1 zoning allows buildings up to 180 feet in height.

If the Proposals are defeated – or if they pass, and the Library decides not to go ahead with a joint project with City - the Library could the sell its newly rezoned 1.2-acre property to a private developer with the high-density D-1 zoning and build a new library on a different site. Or, it could do a joint project on its present site. In either case, it wouldn’t be required to do any affordable housing or any of the other appealing things mentioned in the ballot language.

Myth: “The 2018 Charter Amendment proponents said they would raise the money to fund the park.

This is the “Big Lie” of this entire controversy. It didn’t happen. No one with any authority to speak for the Library Green Conservancy or the Ballot Committee ever made such a promise. This false statement is constantly repeated by opponents of the park to put the blame on the proponents for the City’s failure to follow the will of the voters. When repeatedly given the opportunity to support this myth, none of these opponents of park development have identified what was said, by whom, when and where. Because they can’t.

Myth: “[T]he site is ill-suited for a park…. The concept of a grand park on top of a parking structure has always been a fantasy.” Mayor Christopher Taylor, Ann Arbor Observer, May 2025.

A park on top of a parking structure or other urban infrastructure is not a fantasy—it has been realized in many other cities. One of the most famous public spaces in the country is San Francisco’s Union Square, which is located atop the world’s very first underground parking structure, which was built in 1940. Chicago’s magnificent Millenium Park sits on top of three underground parking garages. Philadelphia has a 12-acre plaza and park built over Interstate 95. The Highline in Manhattan, built on an elevated, abandoned railroad line, has become one of the most talked-about parks in the world. And the list goes on…

Myth: “The city has no money, certainly not the millions of dollars necessary to design, build and maintain an urban park...” Mayor Christopher Taylor, Ann Arbor Observer, May 2025.

This just isn’t true. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA), whose boundaries include the Library Lot, has spent many millions of dollars to “enhance the pedestrian experience” along downtown streets, on miles of protected bicycle lanes, to remove downtown curbs, to order countless studies, etc. The DDA recently announced plans to “improve” the block of 4th Ave. from Liberty to William—one block from the Library Lot—at a cost of $8 million! (By contrast, the City itself plans to do very similar improvements on four blocks of Ann Street for $5.5 million.) The City hopes to spend about $6 million to install pop-up security barricades in downtown streets. Council has budgeted $100,000 to send large, glossy brochures promoting Councilmembers to every household in the city. And finally… City Clerk Jacqueline Beaudry has stated that this special August election called solely to vote on these Proposals will cost the City between $200,000 and $250,000.

For further information, contact Thomas Wieder at (734) 994-6647 or wiedert@aol.com.

Visit the Vote “No” on Proposals A and B website: savea2parks.com.