City Council puts off vote on living wage By Jon Zemke Daily Staff Reporter The Ann Arbor City Council last night moved to postpone voting on a proposal to establish a living wage for city workers until their next meeting Feb. 7. The "living wage" is a proposal that would ensure that all city employees and employees of contractors, vendors and grantees exceeding deals of more than $10,000 a wage of $8.50 per hour with benefits or $10 per hour without benefits. Similar living wage laws have been passed in 40 other cities and townships across the nation. The council began by holding public hearings for 2.5 hours on the living wage proposal and a second proposal limiting outdoor signage. More than an hour of the hearing was taken up by citizens speaking on the living wage. "The argument that we shouldn't attempt this in order to remove the mountain of poverty first should be viewed as a poor excuse for giving people a living wage," said Ann Arbor resident Arthur Paris. Speakers ranging from University students and professors to area residents and contractors who would be affected by the living wage proposal spoke out in support of the amendment. Only one speaker, Martha Johnson, the Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce's vice president of government affairs, spoke against the proposal on behalf of her organization. "The ordinance doesn't raise the overall skill level of the work force," Johnson said. Among those from the University who spoke out on behalf of the proposal was Law student Carl Carlson, who urged the council to view the living wage as an investment in the city's future. Economics Prof. Tom Weisskopf, the director of the Residential College, also spoke in favor of the living wage. "The question is why should we interfere with the market when it's the best thing going for our economy," Weisskopf said. "We should be interfering with the market when it offers full time jobs with wages that are barely enough to live on." Although the council postponed the vote, four of the council members were wearing "Yes Living Wage" pins and one other had spoken out in favor of the proposal, a group that could potentially constitute the five-member majority needed to pass a measure through council. The other proposal, which will be brought back up for discussion Feb. 7, was an amendment to limit signs and outdoor advertising. The amendment would allow home owners and realtors to post for sale signs without a city permit for 60 days. If the house was not sold in the initial 60 days, the sign would be allowed to remain posted another 60 days with a city permit. But after the initial 120 days, the sign must be taken down for 60 days before another can be posted. "It would seem to me that it is irresponsible to spend tax payer money on enforcing this ordinance, but also defending this ordinance in the courts," said Tom Whitehouse, Ann Arbor Board of Realtors president. A majority of the speakers during the public hearing were Ann Arbor realtors who urged the council not vote for the proposal because of the numerous restrictions on signage in the proposed ordinance. The realtors were threatening to sue the city if the ordinance passed, but not all of the realtors who spoke were against the amendment. "I very much regret the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors threat to sue if the ordinance is passed," said Eunice Burns, a realtor with Charles Rienhart realty and a former city council member. Originally on page 1A in the 1-19-2000 issue of the Daily.