[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SG-W:/ greenbelt



Scott,

In some regards, this has already been decided by the utilities agreements
that the City has with the surrounding townships. They generally identify
where the City will and won't extend water and sewer services. As far as
Scio and Ann Arbor Township, that's the end of the story unless they want
to individually develop separate water and sewer services, which they
don't have any desire to do as far as I know. Pittsfield is partially
within A2's utility service district while the remaining areas are either
served by the Ypsi system or services from Saline. Each Township's Master
Plans identify how growth in those areas occur. There probably is some
merit in more closely coordinating those development plans with Ann
Arbor's and providing transit, walkability, etc.

As far as pushing sprawl further out, that might happen. I think Ann Arbor
can serve as a model for those other communities. Other than Sylvan
Township, I think most of the communities in Washtenaw County, despite
some appearances, are concerned about the impact of development and are
making some efforts to manage it. Sylvan is the rogue township is this
regard and I still haven't figured out if this is a reflection of actual
community sentiment or just that pro-growth forces are in control of
Township Hall. 

Andrew Mutch
Novi

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Scott Reetz wrote:

> If the citizens of Ann Arbor pass this proposal, would Ann Arbor more
> likely use funds to pay for lands farther out "in the cornfields" where
> there is little infrastructure or contiguous to the edge of the city
> limits where there is infrastructure? Wouldn't it make more sense to
> allow development contiguous to the edge of the city limits? For
> example, Ellsworth Rd is paved, has bus service and is already partially
> developed. Is more development along Ellsworth, such as the new shopping
> center at Stone School Rd, considered sprawl, or is this totally
> appropriate?
> Michael Sklar's idea that development would be encouraged in townships
> that are progrowth is intriguing. It seems to be a ready-made solution
> to where development should occur. However, the most pro-growth
> townships tend to be further from the edge of Ann Arbor. This would be
> "leapfrog" sprawl as opposed to "contiguous" sprawl.
> Are there sites in the contiguous townships that are appropriate for
> development? Shouldn't these sites be identified? I am not necessarily
> pro-development, but I am trying to reconcile Ann Arbor's popularity--it
> contains a nationally and internationally recognized university and
> medical center, a major campus for the largest pharmaceutical company in
> the world, etc, etc. Development is going to occur, where do you want
> it, and what do you want it to look like? I would feel much more
> comfortable with this proposal if I had some idea of where development
> is going to be steered.
> Scott Reetz
> 
> 
> 
> ===============================================================
> smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
> sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
> County.
> 
> Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
> email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> smartgrowth-washtenaw"
> ===============================================================
> 




===============================================================
smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
County.

Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
smartgrowth-washtenaw"
===============================================================