In the upcoming August 2025 election cycle, Ann Arbor voters will consider local ballot proposals concerning plans for a new library and the repeal of a 2018 charter amendment that reserved space for an urban park. The Michigan Daily spoke with elected officials and local advocates to understand the potential impacts of both proposals.
Proposal A: Transfer of property to AADL
Proposal A would allow the Ann Arbor District Library to buy the properties of 326 S. Division St. and 319 S. Fifth Ave. — which sit adjacent to the AADL’s downtown branch and currently house the Library Lane Parking Structure — for $1 from the city. If passed, the AADL would build a new library that would include retail spaces, multi-use areas and mixed-income housing.
In an interview with The Daily, Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor said the transfer of property wouldn’t affect residents’ taxes.
“The library is proposing to build two large buildings; one large building on each parcel, perhaps connected,” Taylor said. “The first several floors of those buildings will be (the) library. The floors above the library will either be rented to or condoed out to private persons, new tenants. Those properties will pay taxes. That will be new development. You will not pay new taxes. There will be new housing provided above the library, and those new properties will pay taxes.”
Taylor said the passage of the proposals is important for the city’s housing needs.
“Housing costs in Ann Arbor over the past 10 years have increased to four and a half times the rate of inflation,” Taylor said. “Rents have increased to two and a half times the rate of inflation. This is because demand has outstripped supply. The passage of proposals A and B and the library’s provision of hundreds of units of new mixed-income housing will not solve everybody’s problems immediately, but will play a role in rebalancing supply and demand.”
In an email to The Daily, AADL Vice President Aidan Sova wrote the new library will ideally open in six to seven years if both proposals pass.
“The estimated, and hopeful, timeline includes two years for design development and three years for construction,” Sova wrote. “During construction, a temporary Downtown Library will operate in a location yet to be determined. It’s important to emphasize that economic conditions may influence the timing of this major endeavor. Our aspiration is to cut the ribbon on Ann Arbor’s incredible new Downtown Library in approximately six to seven years.”
Proposal B: Repeal the “Center of the City” amendment
Proposal B would repeal a 2018 amendment that required the Library Lane Parking Structure site to be developed into an urban central park and civic center commons called the “Center of the City.”
Taylor expressed his skepticism about the feasibility of the 2018 amendment, criticizing its lack of funding and physical limitations.
“We don’t have the millions of dollars necessary to build a park at this location — even if a park were physically possible, which is questionable,” Taylor said. “The parcel is a parking garage. It’s a concrete box upon which no trees, no great trees, no grand trees will grow … The results of the 2018 amendment has been a continued dead spot within our downtown (and) is simply impractical. The concept of a grand and beautiful central park at this location is a fantasy.”
In an interview with The Daily, Rita Mitchell, president of the Library Green Conservancy, said developing a green space on the parking structure could be done responsibly.
“Part of that consultant design process that I’ve described has to do with including someone with engineering background to assess how to build safely on that surface and how not to damage it,” Mitchell said. “We’re not going to just go in with pickaxes and plant grass. The plan is to have something that’s safe, that’s appropriate for a downtown that has green, where we can place it well and have hard surfaces for places where we need to have the hard surfaces because of the structure itself.”
Taylor said he believes many voters misunderstood the implications of the 2018 proposal.
“When we talk to people about the 2018 charter amendments, most of what we hear is that we hear mostly regret,” Taylor said. “People tell us constantly that they didn’t know exactly what they were voting for — that they, upon reflection, feel tricked.”
In a 2019 interview, Alan Haber, a member of the Center of the City Task Force, said public awareness was low during the original campaign.
“I did not get a sense that Ann Arbor people know what’s happening,” Haber said. “This returns to my sense that we should be sending out some sort of invitation or report to the whole community. And basically, we’re dealing not with a base that has thought about this at all.”
Mitchell said she disliked Taylor’s addition of what she called biased language to the 2018 ballot.
“He proposed some language that was over 200 words in length,” Mitchell said. “It was very long, and it had some bias to it, some significant bias. And when you present a petition to the people, it’s supposed to be unbiased, so they get a chance to weigh the right, yes or the no … That additional language that was proposed to be added on to the basic language of the petition of the ballot question in 2018 was determined to be illegal, and so it was set aside ultimately, and that went to the state court of appeals.”
Taylor described the practical implications of both proposals currently on the ballot and their interdependence.
“Proposals A and B are linked with each other,” Taylor said. “They both must pass in order for the new library development on both parcels to go forward.”
Daily Staff Reporter Kayla Lugo can be reached at klugo@umich.edu.
