Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Book Cadillac Lobby Ornate Plaster Ceiling. « Previous Next »
Archive through November 26, 2007Detroitbill30 11-26-07  12:01 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 1006
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 12:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now that it's been proved that the ceiling wasn't salvageable can we finally put this issue to rest? Maybe focus on the big picture of how wonderful it is to have this building restored.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10858
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 12:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would hope that the vast majority of people agree with Goat.

For those that don't, I am sure that Ferchill will happily take donations to go to restoring the ceiling to your liking.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 2241
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 12:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

For those that don't, I am sure that Ferchill will happily take donations to go to restoring the ceiling to your liking.



I've got a dollar to put in on it! :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 456
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This building was as good as dead a few years ago, and was saved by a dedicated and passionate few who literally made a deal happen that is as complex as they come.

Anyone outside of this forum would of thought it impossible, and many still do and won't believe it until the doors open. This happens so often on this forum, where people who have no clue about the actualities of a deal or a situation or a business market reality decide to get all armchair-quarterback.

So one word...

Quitcherbichin.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5802
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Gumby... I too will miss the sprinkles.

And as to me being an Armchair quarterback, for those who know me, know that I am anything but someone who just sits behind a computer screen.

I asked questions... I got answers... and then some... :-(
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 9971
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 4:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

O.K. then why do you support Pieroni so much. Why go after developers and those who made this deal become a reality?
If you are such a preservationist why the love-in with Tony and why not go after the other owners of abandoned buildings?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3763
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is some serious misunderstanding going on in this thread, and no amount of juvenile ad hominem attacks is going to resolve it.

The current Book-Cadillac project is not a "restoration". A restoration, by definition, implies that the building was returned to the condition of its original design intent. This clearly was never the goal, given the decades of neglect and abandonment suffered.

The work underway is more properly termed a "renovation", which technically, financially, and from a historic preservation perspective is very different from a "restoration".

On this thread, you have people arguing on both sides who don't even understand the topic they are arguing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5803
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 4:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Goat, Tony and I have been acquaintances for a number of years.

If you're referring to the AAA Building... what would you suggest? That he try to fix it up? That would really piss off a lot of people who will think that fixing it up will be a hindrance to a Quickens move. Or it would be construed as a move to get more money out of the city for their $1 giveaway for the Statler block. Until Dan Gilbert makes his move, there's no point in Tony doing anything with that property. It's doubtful that any bank would give him financing anyway.

Tony is not what I would call a historic preservationist. But his has been the only occupied address on that stretch of Bagley for eons. So I have given him a few preservationist "suggestions". He's just about done with fixing up the great arched window (his idea, not mine). And next will be making the parts of the former theatre space accessible for tours (that's where he wants my help).

He even offered to have a private tour for DetroitYes forumer, but with all the rudeness he's gotten on this forum... who knows?

The entire building (including the former theatre) had a new roof installed a few years ago. The lobby has been restored... the elevator doors have been richly restored to their brass brilliance. Perhaps next he will powerwash his building.

I take offense when people call him a slumlord. He is a full time office tenant in his own building, which is pretty much fully leased. His tenants all know him by name, and he takes time to talk with them in the hallways. The tenants all have reasonable rates, there's a nice cafe and restaurant/bar in the building, and parking is included for all tenants.

Now granted, few people like the condition of the former theatre space, but that irreversible gutting was done before his ownership.

Tony may not be a Chuck Forbes... but he's a whole lot better than a Michael Higgins...
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 9973
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I will agree he is better than Mike Higgins and he has doen some work but he also sat on the AAA building while doing nothing about it. Quicken Loans had nothing to do with that at all so that point is moot.
I just didn't understand your POV about the B-C when other building owners have done so little; And not just Tony Pieroni.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5804
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 5:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How can you look at this map and say the point is moot? Do you think that Dan Gilbert will really want to build a possible HQ around this site? Or will he want the entire block?

The city has not come forward to tell him to fix up his building... no tickets, no contact. While that doesn't difinitively say that they ARE interested in his parcel, if they weren't interested, wouldn't they have contacted him to get it fixed up?





My only point about the BC is that it's sad that the most opulent interior design in the building is not being recreated, while other less fancy areas are. Nothing more, nothing less.

(Message edited by Gistok on November 26, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10863
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 5:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The city has not come forward to tell him to fix up his building... no tickets, no contact



Well, if the city doesn't make him do anything why should he?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5805
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 5:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tell that to the guy who owns the 18 story empty building across the street from him...
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3848
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 5:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The current Book-Cadillac project is not a "restoration". A restoration, by definition, implies that the building was returned to the condition of its original design intent. This clearly was never the goal, given the decades of neglect and abandonment suffered.



Actually it's a little more nuanced than that Danny-Cakes. Renovations do often contain many elements that are full - on restorations, typically of a significant public space. The question asked was why a certain restoration activity was not taking place as part of the over all renovation.

And Gistok, sorry to burst your bubble, but Pieroni is quoted in the press as saying he thinks spending money to restore or clean and clean exteriors of buildings is wasted money. Not only did he refuse to participate in the facade improvement program (no-one was holding a gun to his head) but he also went on to assert the whole program was a waste of cash and should not have been pursued. More than 60 designated historic buildings went through the program. I know there may be some cognitive dissonance because you are associates with him, but really. So from a policy perspective, he is against government subsidy for historic restorations and renovations. Moreover he has roundly denounced the BC project more than once.

Additionally, doing routine systems repair and some surface polishing and buffing hardly constitutes anything more than basic, expected maintenance in order to keep his tenants. A new roof is not restoration or renovation or improvements. It is routine maintenance called for in all his leases. Failure to maintain the roof is breach of contract and his tenants can (and would ) walk. Do not confuse contractual obligations with magnanimous gestures. TP in past posts has done a very good job of buffaloing people into believing that keeping elevators in good working order somehow elevates him to higher landlord status when all he is doing is staying current to code, the bare minimum expected from landlords.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10865
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 5:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Tell that to the guy who owns the 18 story empty building across the street from him...



Just as guilty. I am not excusing any of them but I also am not praising one over the others.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10866
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Moreover he has roundly denounced the BC project more than once.



What were his reasons or issues with the project?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5806
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 6:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can agree with much of what you said Skulker, he has an issue with public money being spent for the private sector... which I believe Jt1 should answer your question.

I don't agree with everything he says or does, and his building quite rightly could use an exterior cleaning.

But putting it diplomatically, and he's stated this on this forum... he wants as little to do with city government as is necessary.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3765
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 7:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Addressing the original topic of this thread:

While I agree that it would be outstanding that the original finishes were restored, it may have been cost-prohibitive enough to have killed the project. I'm not intimately familiar with the design process on this renovation, but it's possible it may have been VE'd from the scope. It's far more important to have the Book-Cadillac occupied and returned to the tax rolls.

That's not to say that a future renovation can't alter or "upgrade" the finishes in the future. Like a city, a building is a constantly evolving organism, and nothing is ever final.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 354
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 7:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

unless the building is demolished...
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3849
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 9:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

While I agree that it would be outstanding that the original finishes were restored, it may have been cost-prohibitive enough to have killed the project. I'm not intimately familiar with the design process on this renovation, but it's possible it may have been VE'd from the scope.



It was cost prohibitive and it was VE'ed out. If it was feasible and not cost prohibitive, you can lay great odds the SHPO and Secretary of Interior would not have let it slide on the tax credit application.

Not a lot of sleuthing needed here folks.\
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2623
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 9:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

He even offered to have a private tour for DetroitYes forumer, but with all the rudeness he's gotten on this forum... who knows?


With all of the back and forth banter about the Pieroni family and the AAA Building, I thought it might be worthwhile to refresh everyone's memory about what the AAA Building is like.

http://nemecek.blogspot.com/20 06/04/exploring-aaa-building.h tml
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10868
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 9:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The real question in regards to the building is whether anyone has any interior photos of the building prior to the fire.

That would be the most telling. We know that there was a paying tenant but i suspect they paid and the building may not have been used by the tenant or maintained. Just my guess.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3767
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 9:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

unless the building is demolished...



Amen. Speaking of which...

I'm kind of surprised to see Skulker posting again. I would think with all the developers beating down the door to build on the Hudsons and Statler-Hilton sites, he'd be up to his ears in work.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5815
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 6:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the link to the AAA Building thread Frank. It looks way worse from the inside than it does from the outside!

No pun intended, but I don't think that that building will ever see the light of day... I wonder if the building facade is original to the building, or if it was modernized like so many buildings around GCP.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3774
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 6:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

No pun intended, but I don't think that that building will ever see the light of day... I wonder if the building facade is original to the building, or if it was modernized like so many buildings around GCP.



What a shame. If the AAA building is going to have any chance of survival, Mr. Pieroni should be protecting the roof NOW. If the floor diaphragms keep rotting away in succession, the load-bearing walls are going to be too slender to remain erect, and could pose a serious liability problem.
Top of pageBottom of page

Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater

Post Number: 112
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 8:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker, you have a ton of knowledge and insight. But why are you so personally insulting to Danindc??? I don't know you, or him, but wow, that seemed really harsh.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2626
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 8:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Thanks for the link to the AAA Building thread Frank. It looks way worse from the inside than it does from the outside!


You're welcome.
quote:

What a shame. If the AAA building is going to have any chance of survival, Mr. Pieroni should be protecting the roof NOW.


For the record, I told him that over a year ago shortly after touring his building.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3775
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 9:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^It's not even a question of replacing rotted floor structure. If those walls become, and are left, unbraced (masonry rule of thumb: unbraced length shall not exceed 30 times the wall thickness), it'll be a lot more than a rot problem--Mr. Pieroni will be picking bricks up out of the street.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 1009
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

What a shame. If the AAA building is going to have any chance of survival, Mr. Pieroni should be protecting the roof NOW



Why would he protect the building? If he wasn't already, then he's certainly now just waiting for his buyout.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tony_pieroni
Member
Username: Tony_pieroni

Post Number: 39
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm a lurker on this site, and am interested in the development threads more than most others. Somehow I missed this thread but three friends have emailed me over the last three days gleefully suggesting I check it out.

I notice the usual suspects are taking shots at me although I've responded to many of their points on previous threads. Not that the facts ever influence these guys. I could care less what these guys think about me and my initial reaction was to ignore their comments. However, some of them are malicious lies and I now feel I have to respond to them. Especially Skulker's.

I don't know Skulker and don't want to. However, our paths must have crossed in the past and I must have really pissed him off to cause him to harbor such vitriol.

Even though I don't know him, I have come to some conclusions as to the kind of person he is. I say he works for the City, the DDA, the DEGC or some similar group. He knows something about narrow areas of real estate development, but he's never had the balls, the money, the smarts, or the confidence to be a developer himself. He's never met a payroll. He's never had to deal with a union representing employees as I do every three years. He's never owned a building in a distressed city such as Detroit, made enough money to pay the exhorbitant taxes, and had to make decisions as to whether to reinvest available profits in new elevators or cosmetic improvements to his real estate. He's a very bitter guy who loaths others who may have made better decisions than he did throughout his life and have the assets to show for it. He's risk averse. He's great at shoveling taxpayer's dollars out the door as fast as they come in, most of them wasted; he may have had some input into the disastrous, wasteful $10 million "bailout" of Harmonie Park. Probably did.

Below are my responses to some of his comments above that are amusing in their own way, but indicative of his so-called real estate development expertise:

Two or three time above he lambasts me for allegedly "not fixing the ceiling in the MI Theater garage." Surely he jests. There's not enough money in the world to restore that ceiling or the theater itself (notwithstanding Michael Hauser's alleged estimate that it would cost $75 million.) I have two estimates to tear down the ceiling -- which is a real headache for me --- for in the neighborhood of $3500. Instead, I spent $40,000 to fix a leak in the theater roof which destroyed part of the ceiling. While it's a headache for me, it has grabbed the attention of Preservation Wayne, and the Michael Hauser orchestrated PW Theater tour features it on the annual tour. Approximately 400 people visit and "oooh" and "ahhh" when they see it. I feel I'm spending my hard earned dollars to protect the ceiling in its present form for the apparent pleasure it gives you preservationists. My pleasure. I enjoy showing it to folks that seem to enjoy seeing it even though I could care less about the damn thing. (I confess that as I write this I'm convincing myself I should tear the f______ thing down and end the debate over whether I should "repair" it [good Lord, are some of you people serious?] or continue to maintain it as it is.)

Skulker is a liar. (Try to sue me.) He states
I was quoted "in the paper" that spending money to restore or clean building exteriors is a waste of money. I have never said that and that's not my view. I've posted on here several times that building owners in Detroit face daily decisions as to whether to spend very limited (if any) profit dollars on required maintenance and physical upgrades or cosmetic improvements. The wise owner chooses the former. (I've spent over a million dollars in the past five years on building improvements at the MI Bldg but not nearly as much on cosmetic improvements as I'd like to.

Skulker states that my repairs are "routine maintenance required by tenant's leases. Failing to maintain the roof is a breach of contract and my tenants would walk" if I failed to do so. You know-nothing. Only ONE of my 60+ tenants has a lease. My tenants are free to leave at ay time. I have tenants who have been in the building for over 20 years without leases. I improve my building because it's good business to do so, not because I'm compelled to do so. Many building owners don't share that view, or don't generate the dollars to do so. Skulker couldn't run a Detroit office building if his life depended on it. Hasn't a clue.

Here's another malicious Skulker lie. With reference to the recent Facade Improvement Program, he states "Not only did (Pieroni) refuse to participate in the facade improvement program, (Pieroni) asserted it was a waste of cash and not to be pursued." Bullshit. I think that it was a worthy program and I applied and was qualified for a grant. I changed my mind at the last minute and did not take the money, for a very good business reason which I'm not going to get into here. (If Skulker had an inkling about how real estate really works he'd know why I didn't pursue it, but he doesn't.) [It did not involve money as I have plenty of that, and no debt whatsoever.]

Miesfan has a couple of pretty dumb comments as well. Read my comments above re: the theater ceiling.

Skulker: Danindc I've noticed is much maligned re: his views on some subjects I've seen, but in this case he's right and you're very wrong. He knows much more about preservation than you do, and I suspect you know that as well based upon your vitriolic attack on him. Disgraceful.

Now, let's talk about the 139 Bagley (AAA) Building, for the umpteenth time. My company bought 1/2 interest in the building in 1996 (from United Way, which had owned 1/2 interest in the building for many years.) The investment generated a good yield on my investment, but that's not why I bought it primarily. The building was subject to a 99 year net lease owned by AAA. AAA had indicated to me that it would look favorably on an opportunity to buy out its lease, which at the time ran through 2015. The problem was the other owner, a resident of VT, wouldn't even talk with me about permitting AAA to buy out its lease. I approached her numerous times over the succeeding years years about permitting the buyout and developing the building.

My intent after the buyout was to renovate the building. It was, and is, structurally sound. I have the money to do that without going to the bank. I talked to several prospective tenants for the building over the years but of course while there was great interest, no one would consider leasing space there as long as the S-H was there in it's then condition. (When I started this process in the '90s there was much hoopla about the prospective renovation of the S-H.)

During this entire time the S-H was the responsibility of the DEGC. DEGC has historically been the biggest slumlord in Detroit. While AAA maintained the 139 Building (kept it secured and heated) the DEGC didn't make even a feeble attempt to secure the S-H. Therefore, vandals went in and out of the S-H at will. They went up to the 6th floor of the S-H, dropped onto the roof of 139, got into the building thru the elevator penthouse, and did well over $300,000 in damage. Ripped out the HVAC system, the elevator motors, busted up all the plumbing fixtures for the fun of it, and so on. Doing business in Detroit, especially with those assholes at the DEGC running loose, is damn near impossible. Life's too short to continue trying I'm coming to believe.

When it became apparent that the S-H was coming down I filed a partition action against the other owner and on April 30, '05 the case was settled and I acquired her interest. I then made arrangements with AAA to meet on May 16th to negotiate a lease buyout. I was prepared to renovate the building as soon as the S-H was down. However, on May 5th the building burned. Man plans, God laughs.

There is still ongoing litigation over the fire, which is not likely to be resolved for 2 or 3 more years. In the meantime I spent almost $20,000 securing and fencing the building. It's worked; no more gratuitous vandalism. I tried o make a deal with the DEGC to secure the entire block. My proposal made too much sense and they declined so I secured my own building. The DEGC "secured" its land by having some hack contractor fence it. Large sections of the fence fell down within days, thereby exposing my building to attack from the rear. They simply walked away. Take a look at the site today. Overgrown with weeds. For weeks, a bunch of homeless guys removed the locks on the DEGC's gates (a child could do that) and made a small fortune parking cars during Tigers and Lions games, thereby undercutting other lot owners such as I, who go to the trouble to pay for licenses and all that good stuff.

By the way, no one from the City, Ilitch or Quicken have said one word to me about acquiring the site. Believe Quicken or anyone else plans to build there when you see the building going up, and not before.

A final word about the B-C and my alleged comments about it. I think it will be great when the project is completed. I hope it's very successful. However, based on my experience I have my doubts it's going to be. Reasonable people differ I guess.

My objection to the deal is the amount of our taxpayer dollars that are going into the deal. MSHDA's got $6 million in the deal that I believe they will be lucky to see again. Same for the millions "invested " by the City pension funds. Ferchill's got balls I must admit and the guy deserves to have a success. However, he's only got $3 million of his own cash in the deal and most of that went to Butzel Long for legal fees; they did a great job on the most complicated financing scheme I've ever seen. Thank goodness too for Chevron and Meijers, which bought the many millions of tax credits (using your and my tax dollars.) Good luck, Ferchill.

I notice someone even took a gratuitous shot at Camilo Vergara. Surely you folks must have realized that his "Skyscraper Park" was tongue-in-cheek. Camilo's my brother-in-law, by the way. He's done a tremendous job for preservation over the years by documenting the decline and decay in our central cities, and the reasons for those processes. Five years ago he was awarded a $500,000 McArthur "genius grant" so he must be doing something right.

Gistok, thanks for trying to keep the record straight. I appreciate it. I admit I'm not a preservationist unless an owner wants to spend his own money to do so. And, many do, and I admire them for doing it. I just don't like people telling me or other owners what they should and must do with their own property. And this forum is very lucky to have such a knowlegable guy contributing. A true expert (who knows much more about the MI Theater and MI Bldg than I do I readily admit.

P.S. My restoration contractor tells me the minimal additional damage caused by the lack of a roof on 139 does not justify the expenditure for a new roof at this stage. I will revisit the issue, however. And, I've been considering taking my plans into the City for permits to rebuild. Bet that would cause the s____ to hit the fan with the Quicken thing hanging around. Anyone think the City would let me do anything to the property without a lawsuit? Fun and games in Detroit
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5820
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the kind words Tony... now the other half of the forumers are really going to hate me... :-(

:-)

(Message edited by Gistok on November 28, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10873
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 12:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tony - Your argument above has a lot of holes in it.

I believe that there is probably a middle ground between what you state and what Skulker states (although I have met him many times and he carries more credibility with me) but your claims to be a wonderful building owner and a brilliant businessman are in stark contradiction.

So on a one by one basis:

quote:

I don't know Skulker and don't want to. However, our paths must have crossed in the past and I must have really pissed him off to cause him to harbor such vitriol.



A little late to play the role of the innocent victim. I have met Skulker and your comments are incorrect here. If anything he is a person that deals in fact. **Pure opinion on my part**

quote:

Even though I don't know him, I have come to some conclusions as to the kind of person he is. I say he works for the City, the DDA, the DEGC or some similar group. He knows something about narrow areas of real estate development, but he's never had the balls, the money, the smarts, or the confidence to be a developer himself. He's never met a payroll. He's never had to deal with a union representing employees as I do every three years. He's never owned a building in a distressed city such as Detroit, made enough money to pay the exhorbitant taxes, and had to make decisions as to whether to reinvest available profits in new elevators or cosmetic improvements to his real estate. He's a very bitter guy who loaths others who may have made better decisions than he did throughout his life and have the assets to show for it. He's risk averse. He's great at shoveling taxpayer's dollars out the door as fast as they come in, most of them wasted; he may have had some input into the disastrous, wasteful $10 million "bailout" of Harmonie Park. Probably did.



You just make yourself look like a spiteful jackass with that diatribe. You claim he must be bitter but it is obvious who the bitter one really is. Your claims to be such a wonderful presence downtown once again are hurt by your displaced anger. Can't be a saint if you want to point a finger like a sinner.

quote:

Two or three time above he lambasts me for allegedly "not fixing the ceiling in the MI Theater garage." Surely he jests. There's not enough money in the world to restore that ceiling or the theater itself (notwithstanding Michael Hauser's alleged estimate that it would cost $75 million.) I have two estimates to tear down the ceiling -- which is a real headache for me --- for in the neighborhood of $3500. Instead, I spent $40,000 to fix a leak in the theater roof which destroyed part of the ceiling. While it's a headache for me, it has grabbed the attention of Preservation Wayne, and the Michael Hauser orchestrated PW Theater tour features it on the annual tour. Approximately 400 people visit and "oooh" and "ahhh" when they see it. I feel I'm spending my hard earned dollars to protect the ceiling in its present form for the apparent pleasure it gives you preservationists. My pleasure. I enjoy showing it to folks that seem to enjoy seeing it even though I could care less about the damn thing. (I confess that as I write this I'm convincing myself I should tear the f______ thing down and end the debate over whether I should "repair" it [good Lord, are some of you people serious?] or continue to maintain it as it is.)



I wonder what your paying tenants would think if the parking no longer had a roof. Once again playing the role of the saint. You repair the roof for the business reason, not for the 'oohs' and 'aahs'. Thise coincidentally have nothing to do with your 'preservation but the complete perversion of the situation. The 40K was for business. If you claim anything beyond that you are a liar. Thanks so much.

quote:

Skulker states that my repairs are "routine maintenance required by tenant's leases. Failing to maintain the roof is a breach of contract and my tenants would walk" if I failed to do so. You know-nothing. Only ONE of my 60+ tenants has a lease. My tenants are free to leave at ay time. I have tenants who have been in the building for over 20 years without leases. I improve my building because it's good business to do so, not because I'm compelled to do so. Many building owners don't share that view, or don't generate the dollars to do so. Skulker couldn't run a Detroit office building if his life depended on it. Hasn't a clue.



While Skulker's lease assumptions may be incorrect the point is made in your post. You do basic maintenance to maintain tenants. Would you like a medal for maintaining your building to retain tenants. I hate to break it to you but people that own buildings do that every day. Certainly not a saint in this regard.

The following two paragraphs just seem to completely contradict each other. While you claim you are a wonderful landlord that does all you can you applied for, and were offered money from the city but turned it down. The only caveat would be that you would have to put up some of your own money or as you say. ". I changed my mind at the last minute and did not take the money, for a very good business reason which I'm not going to get into here." I think that the reasons are very, very apparent. Again this is not an action of the saint that you claim to be so forgive me if I don't shed a tear that you chose to turn down city money to clean your neglected property. Of course with paying tenants why would you spend a penny of your money if it is not necessary. I'll contact the church but I think that you are lacking to be considered a saint.

quote:

I've posted on here several times that building owners in Detroit face daily decisions as to whether to spend very limited (if any) profit dollars on required maintenance and physical upgrades or cosmetic improvements. The wise owner chooses the former. (I've spent over a million dollars in the past five years on building improvements at the MI Bldg but not nearly as much on cosmetic improvements as I'd like to.

Here's another malicious Skulker lie. With reference to the recent Facade Improvement Program, he states "Not only did (Pieroni) refuse to participate in the facade improvement program, (Pieroni) asserted it was a waste of cash and not to be pursued." Bullshit. I think that it was a worthy program and I applied and was qualified for a grant. I changed my mind at the last minute and did not take the money, for a very good business reason which I'm not going to get into here. (If Skulker had an inkling about how real estate really works he'd know why I didn't pursue it, but he doesn't.) [It did not involve money as I have plenty of that, and no debt whatsoever.]



quote:

Skulker: Danindc I've noticed is much maligned re: his views on some subjects I've seen, but in this case he's right and you're very wrong. He knows much more about preservation than you do, and I suspect you know that as well based upon your vitriolic attack on him. Disgraceful.



Hypocrite.

quote:

The investment generated a good yield on my investment, but that's not why I bought it primarily.



I applaud the business decision but let's hear your motivations if the existing lease wasn't the issue. As someone that has made a few business deals in my time I have to question the integrity of the statement given the fact that you point out the intent wasn't to profit on the lease but did not put in the due dilligence about the other 50% stakeholder. Either you are lying about this or were very ignorant when you bought the stake in the building. Just one more hole in your claims,

quote:

I talked to several prospective tenants for the building over the years but of course while there was great interest, no one would consider leasing space there as long as the S-H was there in it's then condition.



I'm curious; How could you be making deals when it was understood at this point the other owner wouldn't consider allowing AAA to buy out the lease. Either there is ignorance or a lie in your claims. Which is it?

quote:

kept it secured and heated) the DEGC didn't make even a feeble attempt to secure the S-H. Therefore, vandals went in and out of the S-H at will. They went up to the 6th floor of the S-H, dropped onto the roof of 139, got into the building thru the elevator penthouse, and did well over $300,000 in damage. Ripped out the HVAC system, the elevator motors, busted up all the plumbing fixtures for the fun of it, and so on. Doing business in Detroit, especially with those assholes at the DEGC running loose, is damn near impossible. Life's too short to continue trying I'm coming to believe.



I'm curious why, as a 50% stakeholder why wouldn't you do something to stop the continued break-ins. I have owned properties and when I had issues I addressed them. The city is obviously neglectful in this situation but turning a blind eye certainly isn't the best solution to the situation. Once again it appears that you left the work to AAA and looked the other way. Point the finger all you want but some of the blame lies with you and your partners as well.

quote:

When it became apparent that the S-H was coming down I filed a partition action against the other owner and on April 30, '05 the case was settled and I acquired her interest. I then made arrangements with AAA to meet on May 16th to negotiate a lease buyout. I was prepared to renovate the building as soon as the S-H was down. However, on May 5th the building burned. Man plans, God laughs.



If it was that easy and you had investors or tenants lined up why did you wait so long? There are some major holes in your timing and story.

quote:

There is still ongoing litigation over the fire, which is not likely to be resolved for 2 or 3 more years. In the meantime I spent almost $20,000 securing and fencing the building. It's worked; no more gratuitous vandalism.



Of course this site that you read had links to the Hot Fudge site with pictures of a homelss couple living on your property for a long, long time. No sympathy.

quote:

I tried o make a deal with the DEGC to secure the entire block. My proposal made too much sense and they declined so I secured my own building. The DEGC "secured" its land by having some hack contractor fence it. Large sections of the fence fell down within days, thereby exposing my building to attack from the rear.



That is a flat out lie. Your fence was unlocked the vast majority of the time.

quote:

By the way, no one from the City, Ilitch or Quicken have said one word to me about acquiring the site. Believe Quicken or anyone else plans to build there when you see the building going up, and not before.



Of course you have stated your intent to hold the site ransom in the past. They should certainly contact you but your comments in the past have shown how 'willing' you are to work with the interested parties.

quote:

I just don't like people telling me or other owners what they should and must do with their own property.



And in the same vein the people that live in the areas don;t want to hear your BS sob stories and claims to be doing anything more than looking out for your own best interests.

quote:

P.S. My restoration contractor tells me the minimal additional damage caused by the lack of a roof on 139 does not justify the expenditure for a new roof at this stage. I will revisit the issue, however. And, I've been considering taking my plans into the City for permits to rebuild. Bet that would cause the s____ to hit the fan with the Quicken thing hanging around. Anyone think the City would let me do anything to the property without a lawsuit? Fun and games in Detroit



More speculation on your part but given your past comments I think it is extremely hypocritical to claim that you are taking the high road here.

Please let us know when you 'take your plans to the city.' Should I start holding my breath now. Seeing that it only took you 9 years after your group became 50% owners to file a partition action against the other partial owner I expect you to file those papers with the city tomorrow.

Seems to me that your time line mimics the city but you claim to be above it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3776
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 1:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tony, thanks for your comments. It's very helpful to read (or hear) an owner's perspective. I'm not going to enter into the pissing match, because I don't believe that personal grudges help what is essentially business--and it's my belief that this has been a big detriment to doing business in Detroit for quite some time.

I think in the end, most of us want the same thing for Detroit--a truly revitalized city where building owners and businesses can make a profit, and restore some sense of sustainability to the real estate market as well as the tax rolls. I certainly have my own personal viewpoints on what I'd *like* to see, but as someone whose profession depends upon the economics that owners endure, I understand there are always limitations, in both "up" markets and "down" markets. The conflict between these two is perpetually frustrating.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miesfan
Member
Username: Miesfan

Post Number: 73
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 10:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

I notice someone even took a gratuitous shot at Camilo Vergara. Surely you folks must have realized that his "Skyscraper Park" was tongue-in-cheek. Camilo's my brother-in-law, by the way.



This revisionist argument that the Skyscraper Park was tongue-in-cheek is nonsense. I wish the original Metropolis magazine from 1995 was on-line but let's look at Vergara's words that are available:

quote:

Whatever the neighbors might say, Vergara thinks blight has its own kind of beauty. "I became so attached to derelict buildings," he once wrote, "that sadness came not from seeing them overgrown and deteriorating — this often rendered them more picturesque — but from their sudden and violent destruction, which often left a big gap in the urban fabric."



http://the-futurist.com/re-inv enting_cities.htm

I don't disagree that demolition is terrible but disintegration isn't much better regardless of how beautiful it may look from New York or the suburbs. Oh honey that crumbling beauty is so pretty now lets head back home and grab dinner at Applebees.

quote:

"We could transform the nearly 100 troubled buildings into a grand national historic park of play and wonder, an urban Monument Valley.... Midwestern prairie would be allowed to invade from the north. Trees, vines, and wildflowers would grow on roofs and out of windows; goats and wild animals—squirrels, possum, bats, owls, ravens, snakes and insects—would live in the empty behemoths, adding their calls, hoots and screeches to the smell of rotten leaves and animal droppings."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C amilo_Jos%C3%A9_Vergara

So there you have it. The man has a hard on for disintegrating buildings. He wants Detroit to embrace its disintegrating buildings as some sort of quasi-art attraction. I fail to see anything tongue and cheek about his comments.

Besides the whole destruction-as-beauty shtick is so high school goth girl writing bad poetry.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2627
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 10:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

P.S. My restoration contractor tells me the minimal additional damage caused by the lack of a roof on 139 does not justify the expenditure for a new roof at this stage. I will revisit the issue, however.


Thanks for posting, Tony. Have you considered something as simple as plastic sheeting the top floor to minimize how much water damage you get in the floors below?

The benefits wouldn't be anywhere near as effective as a new roof, but neither is the cost.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3777
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 10:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Miesfan, read again the Vergara quotes you posted. The first quote, in no way, implies that a "theme park" is his goal. He's stating that there is a certain magnificence and grandeur that remains in these structures, despite their condition.

In the second quote, the key word is "could". If Vergara had said "should", I might be inclined to agree with you, but this is clearly not the case.

Regardless--a theme park celebrating Detroit's great history would certainly be preferable to the clap-trap suburbanite Disney bullshit theme park currently under construction.
Top of pageBottom of page

Miesfan
Member
Username: Miesfan

Post Number: 74
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 10:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am unfamiliar with the Disney theme park currently being built in Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 958
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 11:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Regardless--a theme park celebrating Detroit's great history would certainly be preferable to the clap-trap suburbanite Disney bullshit theme park currently under construction.

Dan, we are all allowed our opinions, especially on this kind of forum. But the baseless hyperbole of that statement sure does undercut any credibility you are trying to maintain. Clearly, you disagree with a host of the development decisions being made in the CBD. But to so cavalierly dismiss the progress made in the recent past simply exposes an inability to ever admit that the Detroit development community occasionally knows what it is doing, and it highlights your refusal to acknowledge market realities in a troubled urban center.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3780
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Dan, we are all allowed our opinions, especially on this kind of forum. But the baseless hyperbole of that statement sure does undercut any credibility you are trying to maintain. Clearly, you disagree with a host of the development decisions being made in the CBD. But to so cavalierly dismiss the progress made in the recent past simply exposes an inability to ever admit that the Detroit development community occasionally knows what it is doing, and it highlights your refusal to acknowledge market realities in a troubled urban center.



I'm not "cavalierly dismissing progress". I'm stating that the progress that has been made is largely superficial. You can't rebuild a large metropolis on entertainment alone, and to think otherwise is naive and foolish. The casinos and stadiums just gloss over deep-rooted problems that continue to fester and perpetuate over time.

I'm very tired of hearing Detroiters complain about "the realities of a troubled urban market". Have you been to Cleveland, which suffers nearly the identical conditions as Detroit? Are you aware of the magnitude of the projects currently in the works by Misters Stark and Wolstein in that city? What are they able to do there that is currently not possible in Detroit?

I'm confident the developers in Detroit know what they're doing. It's the City of Detroit, State of Michigan, and the alphabet soups that have me concerned. They've wasted a LOT of public money that, IMHO, could have been put to much better and productive use.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 1213
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc-- saying that Vergara was tongue-in-cheek based on his use of "could" vs. "should" is stretching things pretty far.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10875
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 11:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The casinos and stadiums just gloss over deep-rooted problems that continue to fester and perpetuate over time.



True but they certainly bring in much needed revenue that can go to correcting the other major issues the city faces.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3781
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

True but they certainly bring in much needed revenue that can go to correcting the other major issues the city faces.



Then why isn't this the case? From my knowledge, the City of Detroit still struggles to balance its budget, even with the casino revenue.

You have to correct faulty policy before you can expect to be able to throw money at a problem.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 10876
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 1:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is a lot fo waste that the city could cut but we are facing falling state revenue sharing, huge retiree costs, healthcare, etc.

The city can trim a lot of fat but the outgoing dollars is rising very quickly and the revenues, especially from the state are falling.
Top of pageBottom of page

Providence
Member
Username: Providence

Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 3:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Regarding the original topic, I have a thought on why certain details were omitted. I don’t think it was necessarily because items such as the lobby ceiling were too cost prohibitive, but rather that the project designers were concerned with the flow of spaces. If there were three rooms that contained all the detail of the original hotel, the remaining spaces would stand out as being inconsistent, and certainly would pale by comparison.

Designers today are ultimately concerned with spaces seeming clean and modern. Despite that the very nature of this project was to capitalize on the structure’s history, it seems the designers still felt compelled to push the modern hotel look to the greatest extent they could (just look at the room model). I’m sure they have studies galore that indicate today’s hotel goers want this. Ornate plasterwork and modern lines don’t always mesh well together. I figure they intentionally left some details aside in order to present a modern hotel that alludes to its historic past.

If they did fully restore the lobby, ballroom and Italian Garden, it would have forced them to take a more traditional approach on the rest of the hotel. That would mean more overall cost (which certainly would be prohibitive), for design and materials.

I think they want the best of both worlds and trimming 20% of the detail in the restored rooms is the cost of that. So even if you gave them the money to do the ceiling, I somehow doubt they would accept it.

This is certainly just a theory. I have no inside knowledge. But as I try to figure why they cut out details, it makes sense, especially when looking at the drawings. And I think the drawings and renderings are more accurate than some want to think.

It does make me wonder if they are making mistakes from a PR perspective. They have mentioned on a few occasions that the lobby, ballroom and Italian Garden will be restored to their original grandeur. Many people excited about this project are expecting that. If detail is going to be omitted, they should be more upfront about that in the media so when the hotel opens, people don’t walk through the door with different expectations. I certainly believe they will be successful, but they may be positioning themselves to lose some public enthusiasm. If guests go inside and see a hotel similar to the new hotels outside the city, there will be less interest in staying at the BC because of its historic nature. This matter is less important during the week with business/convention traffic, but on weekends they need to make the BC stand out as a unique destination for pleasure seekers.

I personally would have loved to see this project go more the direction of The Drake in Chicago. The BC had the history to pull that effect off, even as a reconstruction. But I understand, and have come to terms with, the fact that something like that was not financially feasible. I am happy the hotel is being renovated. And I’m sure it will be very nice. Maybe one day there will be a new opportunity to restore details missed this time around.

Just wanted to share my perspective.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tony_pieroni
Member
Username: Tony_pieroni

Post Number: 40
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 7:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1: I don't know what all your problems are but I know one of them. You're not great at reading comprehension.

What was one of the things Skulker was hassling me about? The CEILING in the theater. I stated have bids to tear it down for around $3500 because it (the CEILING) frequently causes me grief. You challenge my statement, claiming my tenants would never let me remove the ROOF of the theater. Well, duh. Nobody's talking about removing the Roof. Your sloppiness permeates your defense of Skulker.

You state I've claimed to be "a wonderful building owner, a brilliant businessman, and a wonderful presence downtown." Where did I state those things? Now, they may be true (Miesfan: tongue-in-cheek alert), but I never said anything of the sort, and I'd be embarrassed if anyone else did. While trying to make me out a fool, you're not doing yourself any good.

You must have caught the lying bug from being around Skulker too much. You state that the gate to 139 "has been unlocked the vast majority of the time." What prompted you to pull that out of your ass. It's locked ALL the time and checked frequently. And if it weren't, how would you know? Do you check it frequently?

You state I claimed I'm going to hold the 139 site for "ransom." Where did I ever say that? I've said on this site that I view the development of the S-H site to be good for me (in addition to selling the building if I ever decide to do that) and for the neighborhood and the City. If 'm ever approached I'll address the deal professionally and from a pretty sophisticated viewpoint. I'm a deal maker, not a deal breaker.

Your most ridiculous comment also involved the AAA bldg. You state that "should certainly contact me, but my comments in the past have shown how willing I am to work with interested parties." What the hell is wrong with you? I have never been approached by the City, Ilitch or Quicken and the reason is that no one is interested in building there. It's as simple as that. And, how in hell would you know what any interested parties think anyway? Have you ever been personally involved in a real estate deal? It's clear you don't have the foggiest idea as to how things work. (Are you aware that George Jackson stated under oath in a deposition in '05 or early '06 that the City has never had any intention of buying the AAA building and expected any developer o build around it? He's nver shown the slightest in acquiring the site.)

Finally, the real laugher is your statement that "Skulker is a person who deals in fact." Well nOw, if you say so, that must be true. We'll just ignore his malicious misrepresentations about me in his post.

OK, on to Miesfan: MF, since you can't see that Camilo Vergara's promotion of a Skyscraper Park was tongue-in-cheek, I've got some land in Florida I'd like to sell you. It's above water for several months a year. You quote his statement re: the idea above. They sure do make him look serious. THAT's WHAT SUCH TONGUE-IN-CHEEK statements are supposed to do...look believable. I loved the idea because it caused Dennis Archer to freak out, and anything that would stroke him out was fine with me.

You can post anything you want to in response, but I've wasted enough time on this as it is, so lie away at will. I'm not going to respond. Knock yourself out. (Is Skulker your boss or is he your lackey? LOL)
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 1054
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 11:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The above post questions the wisdom of public money to redevelop downtown Detroit. I pay a ton of taxes, and I can't think of a single better use of our tax dollars.

In fact, reading the above post makes me -- a life long Republican, free-market enthusiast, and business owner -- question the underlying idea of private ownership of land. There are just too many externalities and social values implicated in land use. I'm just not sure these decisions should be left to the market or the whims of individual owners (like the owner from VT who wouldn't cooperate with the above poster's attempts to redevelop the building).

If we had more state control of land use, we might not have so much suburban sprawl, and the government could more effectively relocate business and people into the cities, where they belong.

(Message edited by ray on November 28, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2629
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 12:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Then why isn't this the case? From my knowledge, the City of Detroit still struggles to balance its budget, even with the casino revenue.


Because no government can long generate enough tax revenue off of any one business or industry to cover its entire its entire tax base.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.