 
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 837
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:02 pm: |    |
As long as people keep making excuses for the vandals, trespasser, squatters, scrappers, etc., Detroit will never recover.
If the MCS were in a "decent" city, it would not be in the condition that it is.
Quit making excuses for the Destroyers of this city! |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9268
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:06 pm: | |
Whatever, more irrelevant arguments. Whether or not people are "making excuses for them" does not affect whether they are caught and arrested or not. Again, it has nothing to do with this discussion.
The point is, property owners are responsible for their property. If you feel the city doesn't do enough to keep your property safe, DON'T OWN PROPERTY THERE.
Obviously that is not Mr. Maroun's concern, though, as he owns quite a bit of property there, and could care less one way or another how safe it is, or how many ordinances he's violating. |
Rjlj
Member
Username: Rjlj
Post Number: 757
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:07 pm: | |
Agreed Retroit |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3697
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:09 pm: | |
quote:As long as people keep making excuses for the vandals, trespasser, squatters, scrappers, etc., Detroit will never recover.
LOL, yeah... Those are the people who destroyed Detroit. Roight. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 838
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:41 pm: | |
A person owns property in city A and city B. His property in city A is constantly vandalized. Despite repeated attempts to fence in and secure the property, and despite the fact that he must pay for security services for these properties, the vandalism continues.
His property in city B is never vandalized.
Question: Which city is this person more likely to invest in? |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9269
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:43 pm: | |
Again, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The person is still legally responsible for the properties in city A and B. If he chooses to disinvest in city A, fine and understandable. However, Mr. Maroun has not made that decision. Instead, he chooses to own quite a bit of land, NOT secure it properly, and not meet city ordinances. |
Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine
Post Number: 570
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:47 pm: | |
"If the MCS were in a "decent" city, it would not be in the condition that it is."
I disagree. The difference between vacant properties in other cities and Detroit is that property owners elsewhere make an effort to protect their buildings. They check on them regularly to see that windows and doors are properly secured. They clear trash and debris from the outside. Some find their properties such a valuable investment, they rent VPS systems to guarantee against unauthorized entry.
There's a couple properties around Chicago that do not receive the attention they should like most other vacant properties throughout the city which are sealed. The Damen Silos and Brach's Candy factory have no fencing, or even doors. People go in and destroy and steal, because there's nothing stopping them. Meanwhile, VPS clad properties throughout the rest of Chicago have sat empty for years, but in a state as if they had just been vacated yesterday.
Building owners send a message when their properties appear secure. Think of the Whitney building when it had a guard. The building went untouched for many years. When the guard disappeared and the boards fell off, people went inside. Some damage was done by urban explorers, and a lot of it by scrappers. Eventually a guard was put back on staff, and people stopped going in.
Urban explorers come to Detroit from all over the US because it's a playground with no supervision. They know these are big buildings that are wide open. They know they can go in and no one will care. They know they won't be prosecuted.
You can't stop these people from showing up unless owners send a message they will not tolerate illegal infiltration. That message is simple. No open doors. No open windows. Sure, once and awhile they'll get broken, but it's been proven spending several $100/month on security can offset $ millions in the long run. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 839
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 4:58 pm: | |
The property is question had a fence around it. That fence was broken by someone (other than Mr. Moroun, I presume). And, that fence was repaired promptly after the dead man was found.
For those of you that can't understand why no one wants to do business in this city, ask yourself whether you would want to put up with the repeated vandalism that Mr. Moroun has had to. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3699
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:05 pm: | |
quote:A person owns property in city A and city B. His property in city A is constantly vandalized. Despite repeated attempts to fence in and secure the property, and despite the fact that he must pay for security services for these properties, the vandalism continues.
His property in city B is never vandalized.
Question: Which city is this person more likely to invest in?
You cannot reasonably answer that question based on the information provided.
Case in point, Mr. Maroun. He does not own that warehouse in hopes that it might someday be attractive for development. He doesn't care about that! He owns that property as a means to control the commerce in that area. He's getting exactly what he wanted from the building.
Now if he's concerned about paying to secure an abandoned property, then I would remind him that he lives in America. He can put that property up for sale tomorrow, and for the right price someone would buy it. But until he does that he is responsible for securing it. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 840
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:15 pm: | |
A person has a right to own property wherever they choose. And they also have a right to not have that property vandalized. |
Jtf1972
Member
Username: Jtf1972
Post Number: 116
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:26 pm: | |
They have the right to not have it vandalized.
True.
Shouldn't the rest of the neighborhood have the right to not have blight due to uncared for properties?
I'm no fan of Rudy Giuliani, but one thing he was dead right on was the whole ""Quality of Life" thing. Broken windows lead to more broken windows. Trash leads to more trash. Blight leads to more blight. If you do not care for property you own you are practically inviting vandals. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 841
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:36 pm: | |
Who broke the windows on MCS? Who left the trash?
Was it Mr. Maroun? Why is the blame going toward a man who spent his money to buy property in this city, but no one wants to blame the criminals that prey on this man? Why do the privileges of property ownership not apply in Detroit? |
Downtown_lady
Member
Username: Downtown_lady
Post Number: 537
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:39 pm: | |
"Broken windows lead to more broken windows. Trash leads to more trash. Blight leads to more blight. If you do not care for property you own you are practically inviting vandals."
from Wikipedia:
Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities
This book is based on an article titled "Broken Windows" by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, which appeared in the March 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly. The title comes from the following example:
"Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars."
A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say the book's authors, is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the sidewalk every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighborhood.
The theory thus makes two major claims: that further petty crime and low-level anti-social behavior will be deterred, and that major crime will, as a result, be prevented. Criticism of the theory has tended to focus only on the latter claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ixing_Broken_Windows
http://www.manhattan-institute .org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-bro ken_windows.pdf |
Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine
Post Number: 571
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:45 pm: | |
Retroit, Mr Maroun has sealed his properties and then gone long without making frequent repairs.
It's like not repairing a crack in a dam. It will eventually turn into a gaping hole until the dam ruptures. The train station has never in its vacant history been 100% secure. The rolling doors on the back have always been open, now many of them are gone. Don't tell me he's repeatedly sealed properties when one can now drive a large vehicle into MCS unobstructed.
"A person has a right to own property wherever they choose. And they also have a right to not have that property vandalized."
That's why I lock my doors to my apartment. I don't want people to get inside. I know that my best chance of keeping people out is through security. But imagine if I left that door unlocked everyday? What message would that send to other tenants in my building? What would my insurance company say? They would not help me if they found out I had left the door open to thieves.
Just because you have rights that protect your property doesn't mean you can be irresponsible. |
Thames
Member
Username: Thames
Post Number: 363
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:51 pm: | |
Moroun is a slumlord. That building is so dilapidated that they can't even do film shoots for movies in there anymore because it's unsafe.
Mr. Slumlord needs to clean up his building, secure it and hire 24 hour guards to protect it. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 842
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:06 pm: | |
If you expect everyone who owns abandoned property in the City of Detroit to build an impenetrable fortress around their property and hire an adequate military force to protect it, then you have given them a great incentive to not buy property here.
Keep it up, Detroit. You get what you invite: More vandals and less property owners. Way to go! I'll buy elsewhere, thank you very much! |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3701
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:10 pm: | |
quote:then you have given them a great incentive to not buy property here.
Yeah, because they have done so much with it over the past 50 years. What will Detroit do without their pity?! |
Dbc
Member
Username: Dbc
Post Number: 183
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:16 pm: | |
It's not defending the vandals if you expect the guy to actually MAINTAIN his freakin' property. There were homeless people LIVING in there and people playing hockey, but he's somehow diligently maintaining his property? Please. Otherwise, if vandalism is that bad, then maybe he should sell the fucking thing, as well as MCS!
Basically, the guy's track record speaks for itself. He doesn't give a shit about the city. Maroun has more money than God, but he simply refuses to secure or maintain his buildings.
I only hope that the city under Cockrel, Bing, or Hendrix gets its shit together and starts fining slumlords like Maroun, because Detroit should have been doing that a long time ago. Slumlords like Maroun aren't stupid. If they suffer no repercussions for letting their property rot, then they're not going to spend squat to maintain them. |
Jtf1972
Member
Username: Jtf1972
Post Number: 117
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:25 pm: | |
Retroit,
You are beginning to give the impression of being negative toward Detroit and Detroiters. |
Bragaboutme
Member
Username: Bragaboutme
Post Number: 589
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:28 pm: | |
What properties were you detered from buying in Detroit Retroit? |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 843
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:34 pm: | |
An abandoned property owner is not obligated to make his property "habitable". Nor is he obligated to sell it. Nor is the City of Detroit owning abandoned property more beneficial than that property being owned by private individuals.
The purpose of a fence around abandoned property is to keep out children and pets. It is not expected that it will keep out every adult who is intent on trespassing.
Jtf1972, it is not a matter of being negative toward Detroit or toward all Detroiters. It is about being negative toward the negative aspects of Detroit and the negative Detroiters who are harming the city or defending those that do.
And Bragaboutme, I was being facetious. I couldn't afford to buy a corner store, abandoned or not! I'm just trying to make preparations for when I win the lottery.  |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9272
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:34 pm: | |
quote:If you expect everyone who owns abandoned property in the City of Detroit to build an impenetrable fortress around their property and hire an adequate military force to protect it, then you have given them a great incentive to not buy property here.
The only two options are a crappy unmaintained fence and some plywood that's never checked on or replaced, or a military force?
And again, we aren't talking about somebody buying something here or not. We are talking about a man who holds more city property than anybody else, refuses to secure it, renovate it, or sell it to somebody who will, as a strategic move to maintain control of international trade between Detroit and Windsor. |
Thames
Member
Username: Thames
Post Number: 364
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:45 pm: | |
Retroit, yeah go ahead and buy elsewhere. Just remember,"elsewhere" probably enforces their blight ordinances and you won't get away with neglecting your property there.
Btw, there are companies all across the country that hire extra security to patrol their lots. Mouroun would not be unique if he were to do so. He would just join the ranks of property owners who care about their investments. There are even neighborhoods that hire extra security to patrol their streets.
If you look in the phone book, there are several companies that supply this service. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 844
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:56 pm: | |
I can see this is going nowhere. I'll agree that Mr. Maroun should make a reasonable attempt to secure his property. I hope everyone else can agree that trespassing is wrong, fence or not. |
Jtf1972
Member
Username: Jtf1972
Post Number: 118
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 6:59 pm: | |
Retroit,
How is it not harmful to Detroit to own property and not maintain it?
I am completely against vandals and criminals in general.
The blame lies not solely on vandals or owners, but on both. If a property owner maintains their property and it is vandalized, then the blame can easily be placed. But if there is wrong on both sides, why defend one and blame the other?
If this warehouse had been fixed up and put into use I can pretty much bet that this unfortunate man would not have been found in 3ft of frozen water.
Vandalism does not help property values, but it can be curbed.
Does letting the building rot help property values?
Would you want to buy property by a dilapidated structure owned by Mouroun? |
Thames
Member
Username: Thames
Post Number: 365
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 7:00 pm: | |
I completely agree that trespassing is wrong. As a property owner, I understand that it is a possibility and I do everything I can to ensure that it doesn't happen to me. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9275
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 7:07 pm: | |
Of course it's wrong, nobody in this discussion disagrees with that. But if you look at what broken window theory is based on, you see these criminal activities actually go down where areas are maintained. Nobody has respect for something that looks like shit, because they figure nobody cares and they won't get caught if they violate it. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 845
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 7:25 pm: | |
Would we be better off if Mr. Maroun completely abandoned his abandoned property, i.e. stopped repairing the fence, and let the City take over the property?
Does anyone honestly believe that someone is going to buy this "crap"?
Are we kidding ourselves? Mr. Maroun owns a white elephant in a crime-ridden city with a dysfunctional government. Can we expect miracles out of him? |
Thames
Member
Username: Thames
Post Number: 366
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 7:32 pm: | |
Securing his property would go a long way to handling the crime problem on his property.
Cleaning up would go a long way to make his property worth buying.
It isn't rocket science.
The problem is, Moroun is a slumlord and a lousy neighbor. He needs to take responsibility for his responsibilities before someone else dies. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9276
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 7:47 pm: | |
Is it wrong to ask a man who has made so much money from this city to simply do the things that are expected from any private citizen? There are some amazing people in Corktown, lifelong residents with so much pride and love for where they live. But every day they come out their front doors and see a giant tombstone. And now they can associate a hideous tragedy with it as well. I'm sure the nice high res image the media decided to share of a dead man's legs sticking out of a block of ice will be forefront in their minds when they look out the window for some time. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 848
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 7:53 pm: | |
The Tombstone of Detroit.
Well said. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 9280
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 7:57 pm: | |
Can't take credit, but I did read it here. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7619
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 8:06 pm: | |
Retroit,
I'd have to guess you only have a limited view of Moroun's (not Maroun) history in that area.
It is not just those two buildings that were not secured, but the hundreds of homes purchased by him that sat vacant for years until he was able to get the state to buy up those properties for the Gateway project which will benefit him greatly.
Ask the residents of Delray about the now-vacant properties he has purchased there as his bargainig chip regarding the siting of the new bridge. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 851
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 8:30 pm: | |
No Jams, I am not intimately familiar with all the details. I've limited my comments to the MCS and the "Schoolbook Depository" building.
Regarding the hundreds of homes that he purchased: were those homes purchased in a free market? Would anyone else have purchased them? Would they be in any better condition had he not purchased them?
My intention is not to defend Mr. Moron or any other slumlord. I just think people have an unrealistic expectation of him. Who else has been willing to "invest" in the city? |
Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 3552
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 8:54 pm: | |
lots of people, including me.
The agents of Maroun the Vampire have lied and cajoled residents of the surrounding neighborhood for years. I recall attending a meeting in the early 90's in which Matty's slimy mouthpieces told us with straight faces that the MCS was going to be restored. A tiny dumpster and sign appeared in front of the building for about 6 months.
"Would anyone else have purchased them"?
You'd have to do a case by case study; Certainly some folks were probably glad to sell their tiny old cottages in the early nineties before property values in Southwest Detroit started shooting up; others felt forced into selling when MM's folks deliberately left their properties open and abandoned to intimidate the "holduts" into selling.
This was the case with the grandmother of a friend who was the last person to sell on her block of 23rd street. Every house but the two open and abandoned hulks on each side of the lady's house were demolished...Being Matty Maroun means never having to board up your vacant buildings.
Ask any person who has lived in the neighborhood near the bridge; The tactics of this man and his goons are repulsive, and the idea that he has been able to monopolize a border crossing is frightening, and the fact that people feel compelled to defend him, as if he was some sort of entrepreneurial genius who invented cross border travel, is disappointing,
I wish that the media could track down Mr. Maroun's sisters; long forgotten is the lawsuit they filed against him; apparently the Vampire somehow got his dying father (the man who started the family's business history) to write them out of the will. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7623
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 9:21 pm: | |
quote:My intention is not to defend Mr. Moron or any other slumlord.
Well...unintentional spelling I'm sure, but funny...
quote: just think people have an unrealistic expectation of him. Who else has been willing to "invest" in the city?
I'm guessing the members of the Fire Department that had to fight the fires of all those vacant properties that burned and the neighbors still living in the homes next door.
Google Moroun and Canada. |
Scooter2k7
Member
Username: Scooter2k7
Post Number: 200
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 10:55 am: | |
Everyone is at fault here, Maroun, the city, urban explorers, and the homeless. The homeless of the four should be the least blamed. While yes they are trespassing and breaking the law, but honestly, if you were homeless would you want to sleep outside in the sub-zero temps? If anything the homeless are the smartest of the 4, maybe if they trespass they will be arrested and taken to a warm cell with a hot meal. But this is Detroit, so that will not happen. Maroun is the biggest villian here. There is nothing "business-like" about his holdings. He is no better than an armed gunman holding hostages. The vacant buildings is his gun and Corktown are his hostages. |
Baselinepunk
Member
Username: Baselinepunk
Post Number: 72
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 11:42 am: | |
This may have been addressed someplace, or may be just a "dumb question", but why can't the city take possession of the buildings that are not being kept up and turn around and auction the stuff? Rookie in me talking here, but it would seem to me that if these properties were taken then put up for sale at rock bottom prices (with a stipulation that these buildings either be torn down or "properly" sealed), outside investment persons would be knocking down the door.
Does this guy have his arms somewhere in the city Government? It seems so easy that this can't work. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 853
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:33 pm: | |
Baselinepunk, you make it sound easy, but, really, who is going to buy these properties? What practical use can be made out of them? Is the City going to take care of these properties any better than Mr. Moruin has?
If nothing else, Mr. Moruin is saving the City the expense of repairing the fence and providing security (albeit questionable). He has also generously allowed the Detroit Youth Hockey League to use his property free of charge.
The dead man that was found was not homeless. His family stated so, and from the picture it is clear he was wearing new pants, socks, and shoes. Also, it is unlikely he was murdered, as he was found with his wallet on him. Most likely explanation: Urban Explorer. |
Jcole
Member
Username: Jcole
Post Number: 5615
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:42 pm: | |
quote:But he wasn't homeless. Please don't call him homeless. He always had a place to go. He was loved."
Johnnie Redding, according to his brother and sister, was one of those men who bounced from odd job to couch to the homeless mission and back.
From the above statement in the Detroit News, I got the impression that he lived a homeless lifestyle even though he had places he could stay.It even states quote:Johnnie was infected with the need for drugs and alcohol. Rundown buildings were his clubhouse.
Doesn't sound like an 'Urban Explorer' |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 854
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:52 pm: | |
I stand corrected. Sounds like the family is a bit confused on the definition of "homeless". |
Jcole
Member
Username: Jcole
Post Number: 5617
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 1:24 pm: | |
It just sounds like they didn't want people to think that they turned him away. He was there brother, and in their way, they loved him. |
Gthomas
Member
Username: Gthomas
Post Number: 155
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 2:46 pm: | |
Forget securing or fences up the MCS! Either restore this place or the city should make action to do so or else.....FORCE this so called billionare to take action or enforce the law in his hand. That goes for all largely vacant throughout the city....and the person/persons who owns it. Take action now or else!! Detroit needs to wake up |
Baselinepunk
Member
Username: Baselinepunk
Post Number: 77
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 3:28 pm: | |
"Baselinepunk, you make it sound easy, but, really, who is going to buy these properties?"
Auction at rock bottom prices will attract a lot of investors, even with a stipulation. The "very rich" of the area is not hurting as much as the rest of us; some are even dripping with cash. Property, in a down market, is very attractive.
"What practical use can be made out of them?"
Grants could be applied for to do environmental clean up. Knock it down for green space, community space, park, etc. Not completely familiar with the inventory of property, but there is always a use for property.
"Is the City going to take care of these properties any better than Mr. Moruin has?"
My suggestions do not compel the city to take care of them. If they cannot get the minimum bid for the property the first time around, lower the bid. Perhaps the surrounding community could ban together, pool resources and make it a community thing to realize the property. The options are only as limited as the imagination.
"If nothing else, Mr. Moruin is saving the City the expense of repairing the fence and providing security (albeit questionable)."
Questionable security is just as bad a no security. This Moruin, by not providing proper and prudent security (and allowing access by this hockey group) has opened himself up for a nasty lawsuit. Don't be surprised when we hear that he gets served. You just can't "half-ass it" and not expect to get sued. There is a ton of young lawyers in this town that would love to go after a rich, fat bassturd on contingent.
There is always a positive that comes from a negative ... perhaps this death will function as a prime motivator to correct the years of crap from this person.
PS -- there is also a strong historic preservation movement in Detroit. If these people heard that the MCS was up and needed care, there would be no lack of people lining up for help. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6080
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 4:53 pm: | |
As far as securing a building goes, I think that all we have to do is look at the United Artists Building/Theatre. When the Ilitch's first bought it in the late 1990's, they ignored securing it properly.
For years scrappers and taggers had a field day carting off the Indian Maiden plasterwork from the theatre lobby, and tagging the windows in the office tower.
Well then along comes Dan Gilbert with a possible interest in the area... and suddenly the Ilitch's not only secure the building, put on a new roof, clean up the windows, and put a secure fence around it.
I bet that no trespassers have been back in there since then. Why? Because the building is now secured and relatively mothballed for possible future development.
This shows that with current security technology and a decent fence, it's not impossible to secure a building against trespassers. If there's a will, there's a way. |
Baselinepunk
Member
Username: Baselinepunk
Post Number: 79
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 7:03 pm: | |
I think at this point it should be known that "very" wealthy investors buy stuff and sit on it in order to take a loss. This offsets gains on the books of these people; which does not facilitate any movement in development of the holdings of investors.
Welcome to Capitalist Pig Dog world.
The Book was like this as well through the 80's, perhaps early 90's. If memory serves ... a group of 4 long time investors sat on that bitch to take a loss for a very long time ... the sold out when the gettin` was good.
You're fuckin` welcome.
Perhaps Detroit needs to do a little diggin` in order to realize the potential fact that we are a "loss city" -- a city where a bunch of Capitalist Pig Dogs buys up "loss" property ... sit on it (Potsy) .. and take the loss in order to off set taxes.
This is a Deep Throat thing ... follow the money ... |
Bobl
Member
Username: Bobl
Post Number: 436
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 8:07 am: | |
Let it 'em all burn!....Let 'em all burn!!! |
Big_baby_jebus
Member
Username: Big_baby_jebus
Post Number: 52
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 1:52 pm: | |
Dear MJ Moroun,
You really Fu*cked the pooch on this one
http://onlyndetroit.com/index. htm
Thanks @ss hole!! |
Genesyxx
Member
Username: Genesyxx
Post Number: 617
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 3:34 pm: | |
Does anyone know who's next in line after Moroun kicks the bucket and his/her stand on all these damn abandoned buildings under the company name? |
Mrnittany
Member
Username: Mrnittany
Post Number: 48
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 8:43 pm: | |
Matty has a son Matthew ..... it will all be his once Matty dies.
From someone I know who works inside one of Matty's companies ..... Matthew is somewhat more progressive than the old man, but only slightly, otherwise "knock of the old block" ..... don't expect radical change with respect to MCS, the bridge, etcetera.
FWIW, Matthew is pictured on the front page of this week's Crain's Detroit Buisness. Story about the bridge.
(Message edited by mrnittany on February 03, 2009) |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4077
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 9:36 pm: | |
Yep, Matthew's next in line to take over from what I've heard. I wonder what his relationship is to Matty/Manny's sisters (his aunts)? That's going to be very telling how he runs the business (DIBC), too. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7650
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 10:33 pm: | |
Not good. |
Humanmachinery
Member
Username: Humanmachinery
Post Number: 163
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 7:32 pm: | |
Detroit has a much higher rate of abandoned buildings and homeless people than those suburbs.
Have you ever been to a homeless shelter? I've volunteered at one, and observed a few others.
Many of them are overflowing, and turn people out onto the street when the night's over. It's a "first come first served" scenario when the shelter's open again, and once the place is fullā¦ they have to start turning people away.
Shelter is a basic human need. Some people have no choice but to squat. Of course, some other people think basic needs are privileges.
"If you steal in hunger, I will kick you when you try."
-Jerry Cantrell |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.