A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Ward 3 candidates clash over Arbor South, TIFs and a push for permanently affordable housing

July 03, 2026 | Ann Arbor Public Schools, School Boards, Michigan


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Ward 3 candidates clash over Arbor South, TIFs and a push for permanently affordable housing
At a League of Women Voters forum on Aug. 4, Ward 3 candidates Ryan Bartholomew and Ashley Hall debated how Ann Arbor should expand affordable housing.

Bartholomew argued the city should prioritize permanently affordable, publicly owned housing (co‑operatives, land trusts and publicly owned units) instead of large subsidies to private developers. He criticized the Arbor South financing arrangement, saying it could divert hundreds of millions in future tax revenue to developers over 30 years and expressing concern that contract provisions allow developers to buy out affordable unit requirements.

Hall said she favors an "all of the above" approach: more housing supply, targeted publicly owned options like community land trusts, and carefully managed public–private partnerships led by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. She praised the Commission’s work toward building roughly 1,200 affordable units and said the city should ensure projects deliver neighborhood benefits and avoid damaging green spaces when siting developments.

Both candidates emphasized protections for neighborhood small businesses and immigrants when rezoning corridors such as Packard.

The candidates gave differing cost framings: Bartholomew cited figures he described as roughly $350 million to $373 million in long-term public commitments for Arbor South and said some unit-level costs being discussed would undermine claims of affordability.

The forum did not include officials from the developer or the city finance office; the candidates’ figures and contract claims were not verified during the session.

Next steps: voters will consider these arguments in the Aug. primary; any council action on future TIFs or building on public land would require a council vote and review of project contracts.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee