Discuss Detroit » DISCUSS DETROIT! » Barbara Rose Collins: What the....??? « Previous Next »
Archive through March 05, 2009Leland_palmer30 03-05-09  10:53 pm
Archive through March 06, 2009Thejesus30 03-06-09  9:05 am
Archive through March 06, 2009Lodgedodger30 03-06-09  2:19 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 5379
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Were any comments made by Joanne Watson after last night's meeting?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1625
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No, but I'm quite sure WE can make up a few...
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 363
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ReDetroit - Detroit is a city. Period. The fact Detroit is the heart of a region that chooses to segregate by race (and class) to the extent that it does says as much about the region as it does about the city. Detroit's destiny is the region's and its welfare, both social and capital is everyone's responsibility and everyone's opportunity. we are all humbled by the effects of letting our economic and cultural epicenter crumble.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 96
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fact is, Detroit is broken.Period. Grown up leadership is needed to fix it. Making smart decisions in terms of electing leadership is absolutely necessary to insure some sense of order.

As far as race and class segregation goes, I'd be willing to guess that there's a big surprise for those that think that's still the case in the 2010 census. Lots of people have voted with their feet lately, if you haven't noticed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 364
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

you're right stosh, detroit is broken. but so is the region.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 97
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can you give me some examples of regional breakdown besides the obvious money woes?
Top of pageBottom of page

Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit

Post Number: 1001
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine, on my planet, the realistic needs of city residents take precedent over the idealistic dreams of the region.

And we're all happy here!
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 365
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 2:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

comprehensive land use planning:
development
open space
transportation
water
waste

regional asset management:
arts & culture
zoo (we figured something out here)
cobo (hmm...)
parks
etc.

social:
education (toxic hot potato - is there regional equity here???)
health care

i could go on and on...

our jeffersonian era home rule provisions enable perpetual parochialism and wasteful divisiveness...
Top of pageBottom of page

Midwesthostage
Member
Username: Midwesthostage

Post Number: 1
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

" think I actually agree with MonCon & BRC to some degree, sad to admit. The people of Detroit don't need Cobo, and they don't need casinos, sports stadia, hotels, etc. They need what the suburbs have: good residential areas" Guess what? To have good residential areas, you need things that will attract people who have money to buy and maintain homes, as well as other disposable income, to raise tax base etc. So unless the poor suddenly become completely self-sufficient, and are also able to create these good residential areas, that's not something I would suggest.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 98
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 3:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

These are nationwide problems, not just ours.

In terms of regionalism, there are lots of things outside of Detroit happening on certain fronts. Regionalism is being opposed on many fronts as well outside the city as well as inside.

Development and open space are always going to be sore points. NIMBY thinking prohibits that. Imagine a regional government taking the place of all the communities in Southeast Michigan. Everyone gets a vote, kind of like Nashville's governmental structure. Where do you think that the garbage dump gets put?

Transportation could be better, but I think a regional body will help. I don't know if DOT would go for it, remember the shootdown of DARTA.

Water is not regional by any means. see the city for that one.

Waste is another NIMBY issue. Oakland county has a regional waste consortium that drives down some of the costs associated with this. I just wish that the incinerator wasn't built where it is in the city. If a regional plan could have been worked out perhaps some of this mess and disinvestment in the neighborhoods could have been avoided.

quote:

regional asset management:
arts & culture
zoo (we figured something out here)
cobo (hmm...)
parks
etc.



Contributions without a say in government or management is useless. Regional parks (Huron Clinton) work well. Suggestions for Belle Isle? Stealing a jewel. No regional solution there.

Education? See Jenny. Health care? See Obama.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1207
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Novine, on my planet, the realistic needs of city residents take precedent over the idealistic dreams of the region."

Retroit, there is no realism on your planet. How do you propose that happens without the tax dollars that come from the development and employment downtown?
Top of pageBottom of page

Suzieh1
Member
Username: Suzieh1

Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2008
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 8:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can Detroit ever be portrayed positively in the national news? NO- because we have these idiots on the city council that do such stupid things to bring attention to Detroit in such a negative way. When are the voters going to get smart and not keep electing these idiots? It has been time for a change for a long time.
I am also so sick of Monica Conyers always playing the race card. Is there ever a time when something that doesn't go her way that she doesn't use the race card. It is getting really ridiculous.....there does come a time when enough is enough.
Top of pageBottom of page

Brg
Member
Username: Brg

Post Number: 39
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 9:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I posted this in a another post but it belongs here too. It addresses why Detroit doesn't have a district vote setup.

Sometime ago Sheila Cockrel was on television trying to shoot down any attempts to change the method of voting. She said district/ward voting would lead to corruption and that was the reason the city switched to the at-large at the beginning of the 20th century. Thanks to the at-large most councilmen and women are there for life. Name recognition allows them to collect a paycheck until they die. Case in point: Barbara-Rose Collins. She left the council when she was elected to Congress in 1993. She wasn't that good as a Congresswoman so the voters in her district decided that they would have another woman be their representative. I'm sure the people on this forum know who she is? The mother of a ex-mayor. Back to Collins. After she got voted out (She was on the verge of being tossed out if I recall) she came back to Detroit and decided hey I need a job. How about City Council. Presto, she put her name out on the ballot and name recognition took care of the rest.

Detroit needs to go to a district vote for Council because it forces them to have to campaign in those districts. Monica Conyers did not have one television commercial on air in 2005 yet she got the second highest vote count. Incredible...Imagine if she had to campaign in the Palmer Woods area. They would have laughed her ass out of there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1211
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 10:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"She said district/ward voting would lead to corruption and that was the reason the city switched to the at-large at the beginning of the 20th century."

This is historically accurate. The Progressive movement saw the corruption that resulted from the ward/alderman system in large cities like Mew York and Chicago and pushed for at-large elections. Having a ward system doesn't guarantee better representation if there's a culture of influence peddling or corruption. Who's to say that changing the system would make it any better?
Top of pageBottom of page

Brg
Member
Username: Brg

Post Number: 40
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 10:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine, Detroit is the only major city that still elect its council members at-large. I suppose if it good for places like San Jose and Philadelphia it is good enough for Detroit
Top of pageBottom of page

Bragaboutme
Member
Username: Bragaboutme

Post Number: 623
Registered: 02-2008
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 11:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"When are the voters going to get smart and not keep electing these idiots?"

Ok can we officially retire this question since eveyone has asked it. I could see if Detroit voted on a daily basis.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1213
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 12:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I suppose if it good for places like San Jose and Philadelphia it is good enough for Detroit."

You're missing the point. When you have an attitude of entitlement, corruption and influence peddling as you do in Detroit politics, moving to a ward system doesn't guarantee you better representation, just different crooks. Until you address the underlying attitudes, the system used to elect people isn't going to change the kind of people getting elected.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4237
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 1:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hardly think that's an argument against a change to ward representation. If even the effects and results aren't quite exactly what they are being sold as it would still be an improvement. Just an example, if Monica was elected from a ward, she'd only be running against one other major ward competitior basically making it a referendum on her re-election.

In other words, a "no" vote against incumbency in a ward system is funneled through a single oppossing candidated. However, a "no" vote against incumbency in the existing at large system is almost always split between a dozen or more ways without some ungodly high threshold of coordination. It takes an amazingly large amount of coordination to oust an incumbent in the current system, too much coordination, in fact.
Top of pageBottom of page

Brg
Member
Username: Brg

Post Number: 42
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 1:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"if Monica was elected from a ward, she'd only be running against one other major ward competitior basically making it a referendum on her re-election."

This is what I was talking about. The Detroit City Council is like the Supreme Court. The only way you leave the council is either by leaving at the end of the term, going to jail or dying. It is hard to beat an sitting council member under this system. The name recognition is what keeps them in their job via at-large.

The system is broken and Monica Conyers was able to get the second-highest amount of vote in 2005 because she was an at-large candidate.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4239
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 2:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

She's definitely done enough to cost her both the presidency and vice presidency in the upcoming re-election. And, one can only hope that the FBI drops the axe on her before the upcoming election, because that'd cost her her re-election, altogether. That's about as good as a Detroit can get out of, and hope for from, the current all-at-large system.

In the current system, you don't just have to pair up a top incumbent target with one other opponent, but in the case of Monica (#2 vote getter), to absolutely guarantee her ousting, eight other members to push her down to the #10 spot, and that's just to guarantee pushing one top two candidate out of a seat. It's a ridiculously high threshold. It shouldn't require that much coordination, and this would be the case even under more favorable conditions where youd council members were just ineffective as opposed to ineffective crooks.
Top of pageBottom of page

Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten

Post Number: 754
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 2:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The district/ward system and the at-large system both have faults. I feel however the disrict/ward system gives greater accountablity of the politican to the people and thats what we need now. Chicago politicans are as crooked as they come but the ward system works because they are directly accountable to that ward and ultimately must be judged by the voters of the ward.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1216
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 9:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"It takes an amazingly large amount of coordination to oust an incumbent in the current system, too much coordination, in fact."

Those are good points that I hadn't focused on when comparing the two systems.
Top of pageBottom of page

Brg
Member
Username: Brg

Post Number: 43
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 10:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you are a Detroiter you know what is the process to elect council members. On the primary there X number of names on the ballot and I believe you are ask to choose up to 18 names. In the general election you are ask to choose 9 names for City Council. This is at-large and it is the reason why career council members like Sheila Cockrel is still on the council. (For the record I don't have any against S. Cockrel but she proves my point because she is the longest-teunre member on the council and under the at-large she will always get re-elected because of her name: Cockrel. Same goes for her step-son.)

I knew someone who ran for Council back in 2005 and she had signs, posters all over the place and that got her to the general election but she had no chance because when it came down to it, the name Martha Reeves, Monica "Conyers" were names voters recognize instantly and "poof" four years later we just want them gone.

To a existing council member, you want things to stay the same. Why have your 86,000 salary jeopardized by some opponent in your ward?
Top of pageBottom of page

Leland_palmer
Member
Username: Leland_palmer

Post Number: 548
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 10:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now she's back peddling a little bit. I thought she'd never negotiate with L. Brooks?

"I am not calling racism," Collins said. "I think it's more of the powerful taking advantage of the less powerful.

"I am not saying it's racist or about black and white. It's about power. They thought they could just tick us off like a fly."

Collins plans to stay home until she recovers, but vowed to work with Council President Monica Conyers -- who cheered her on during the speech -- to prioritize ways to recast the deal and identify possible areas of compromise.

"I am hoping even my adversaries will see the wisdom of my words and come back and negotiate," said Collins, adding she incurred the ire of her doctor for attending Thursday's session and going off her pain medications for the day to stay sharp.

"I want them to negotiate with us in full faith. Council should have been privy to the deal. Politics is about the art of compromise, and I think they forgot that.

"We need to dig in our heels and fight for what is proper."


I'd hate to see what her performance would have been like had she been taking her meds.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hornist9
Member
Username: Hornist9

Post Number: 214
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 10:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I for one am so sick and tired of the race card being played every goddamned time someone tries to do something that is against the idiots that are running the Detroit City Council.

I used to think that we had a total bunch of idiots in Warren, but hell, the antics that they used to pull pale in comparison to MonCon and BRC. Jim Fouts and his minions used to rail against ANYTHING Mark Steinberg attempted to do for the City of Warren, now that Fouts is Mayor, he's actually seeing what Steinberg did was good for the City.

I wonder if the City of Detroit can actually recover from these idiots. As Eastsideal said in an earlier post, the Country has just recovered from George and Evil Dick's (my words) raping the country for the past 8 years. I ask, how much longer is the rape of Detroit going to continue to happen? Will the voters in Detroit finally wake up to see how they've been "Jedi Mind Tricked" by these incompetent nincompoops. Last Saturday night, I was watching Blazing Saddles with my good buddy Hornwrecker, and watched Mel Brooks play the Gov...his line about how we've got to protect our phony baloney jobs sure rules the day in the chambers of the Detroit City Council. Brooks could observe the goings-on and write a funnier movie than anything he's previously done. So damned sad. Too bad the intelligent voters don't start a recall drive and remove MonCon and BRC and anyone else that is only voting for their best interests and not those of the City of Detroit. They seem to forget, that taxes were levied to support Cobo Hall, and the entire region gains the benefit of the Hall. Prime example, what if only City of Detroit residents were to attend Autorama this weekend. What would the attendance figures be? If this were the case, how many exhibitors would bother to show their cars? Why can't these short sighted idiots see the handwriting on the wall. The State is only trying to help the entire region by upgrading Cobo. The State is trying to help bail them out for their lousy and typical poor job of keeping up the Hall. The State of Michigan needs Cobo to be strong to keep the Auto Show, and other events like it.

Please for the sake of the entire region, will a Detroiter step up to the plate and take out recall petitions on these idiots? If Kwame can get thrown out of office, maybe the other idiots can be removed as well. Then the true rebuilding can begin.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1217
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I want them to negotiate with us in full faith. Council should have been privy to the deal. Politics is about the art of compromise, and I think they forgot that."

Does anyone know what these Councilmembers want? I haven't heard one anti-Cobo person put their proposal on the table.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 104
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 11:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Go back 6 months to when all this started. Here's the article from Crains from back then.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a rticle/20080824/REG/808250334/ -1

The ongoing (allegedly) talks about Cobo and Olympia's lease of the facility might have a lot to do with it. The deal worked out for Cobo with them, the city can't end it unilaterally. And if there is no action by Olympia, the lease can go on for another 30 years, the city can't do anything about it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl

Post Number: 907
Registered: 04-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Brooks could observe the goings-on and write a funnier movie than anything he's previously done.



and, portray the character "Mel Brooks Patterson"
Top of pageBottom of page

Hornist9
Member
Username: Hornist9

Post Number: 215
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 12:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OHHH! good one, Thecarl! I wholeheartedly agree.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4241
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine, the opposition has given at least a handful of demands that they want. I actually agree with her on that particular point and I made it in another thread, and that is that Cockrel should have at least included a few council members in the process what was being worked through the legislature. It'd have taken away from the inevitable opposition the claim that they weren't included. As if now stands, it does look like they were cut out of the process and then that this was suddenly sprung on them. I think an objective observors could come to the same conclusion. I've also seen my own city's mayor negotiate regional issues in relative privacy and then sprining it on the council. Legislative bodies don't take too kindly to this, and nor should they.
Top of pageBottom of page

Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl

Post Number: 908
Registered: 04-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 10:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Cockrel should have at least included a few council members in the process what was being worked through the legislature. It'd have taken away from the inevitable opposition the claim that they weren't included.



i thought ficano said the full council was addressed at least five times during the process, and a dozen, or dozens, of private meetings were held with individual council members?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4242
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, Kwame Kenyatta, one of those that voted for the deal, claimed a week or two ago that he'd have liked to have been able to give input on the plan before it was taken to Lansing, so, take that for what it's worth. My only point was that some on the council, both some that voted for and against the deal, are saying they'd wish they'd have been given more heads up on the front end of crafting this thing. It appears that this could be a legitimate point.
Top of pageBottom of page

Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl

Post Number: 911
Registered: 04-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 11:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i couldn't find it earlier, but here's that statement i was referencing (http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090301/OPINION05/90227125/123 1/OPINION/Convention+center+pl an+must+go+forward):

quote:

The members of the Detroit City Council were involved in the process. At least five public hearings were held as well as dozens of private meetings with individual council members or members of their staffs. My staff, along with representatives of the auto dealers and the governor participated.

Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 816
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 12:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Isn't it pretty much SOP for the mayor to do the deal-making and pass it on to council for approval once the ink's dry?
Isn't this what Kilpatrick did with Windsor when he was trying to sell off the tunnel rights? I don't recall council claiming anything was wrong with that (procedurally)..and it seems as though MonCon was one of those defending the Kwamster for his illicit trip(s) to Canada for his tunnel dealings..
I really get the feeling that this is purely political..that Monnie & her idiot followers on the council see this as a way to put a stake in the heart of Ken Cockrel's mayoral bid.
They as much as said so in Thursday's public circle-jerk, slamming Cockrel for daring to invoke his own father's name, while praising Dave Bing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten

Post Number: 755
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 12:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You would think that MC would want Cockrel to win the election because if he loses he goes right back to the council to hopefully regain his presidents seat.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4244
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 1:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doug, actually, the tunnel authority deal was almost exactly identical to this one in how it unfolded with charges that the mayor was not providing enough information and the usual protectionist rhetoric. In fact, Shelia Cockrel charged that the mayor was dealing in secret, and accused deputy mayor Anthony Adams of "setting the city back 50 years" for the mayor's office not being forthcoming about the plans.

Hell, it even broke down almost along the same lines, and broke down to 5-3 vote, to boot. The only real difference was that Monica wasn't president when they voted it down, and she was actually absent for the vote due to surgery.

And, very similar to how this is unfolding, the mayor went above the heads of the council charging that the council's rejection of the authority was illegal/against the charter.

You really jogged my memory on this one, and the similarities are eerie. Yes, the council most definitely did scream about not being kept in the loop, enough. It's a common complaint by almost all legislatures, as its a common give-and-take and debate about the seperation of powers.

(Message edited by lmichigan on March 08, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten

Post Number: 758
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 1:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Historically Detroit mayors have not worked well with council. CAY was famous for having his Department heads not show up for council budget reviews. He felt that the body wanted to overstep its bounds and get into the business of the executive branch a little too much. The same complaint and tension was still there in various degrees under Archer and KK as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 109
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 2:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BRC from back in the day. Some things never change:

Jet Magazine August 19 1996
Top of pageBottom of page

Themax
Member
Username: Themax

Post Number: 849
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Someone on local TV said that MonCon is going to ensure Bing is the next mayor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1219
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That doesn't explain what the anti-Cobo hall crowd wants. They wanted a seat at the table for negotiations. Fine. But if the end results were going to be the same, voting against the deal because you aren't included is childish. There must be specific issues that they want included. What are they and how realistic is it to think that anyone besides themselves are going to support revising the deal to include them?
Top of pageBottom of page

Locke09
Member
Username: Locke09

Post Number: 49
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They have expressed concern about the 5-member authority with everyone having veto power. I agree with that one. They haven't said, but I suppose they want to go back to the 7-member authority (WC with 2 and Detroit with 2). I thought that was realistic myself when I suggested it earlier, but LBP said on radio that it was unacceptable to him. Seems he doesn't trust Wayne County or Detroit.

They have said they want Detroiters to be given preference for jobs. That does not seem realistic. But organizations come up with ways to ensure diversity and so the authority should be able to come up with ways to ensure that Detroiters and Detroit businesses are not disenfranchised. But that assumes you trust the structure of the authority. They do not as it is presently constructed, and others agree with them.

They do not think Cobo should be sold. They believe stimulus money can be used to eliminate the need to sell it. That seems unrealistic, pending some information from Washington that they are waiting on. I don't believe stimulus money should be used even if it is okay with Washington. I believe that the same tax revenue that was going to be used under the proposed deal should still be used, without Detroit selling Cobo. Keep the 20 million and let Detroit continue to use the revenue from parking to pay off the parking bonds. I don't know why that would be unrealistic. Detroit still owns the Zoo, but has an authority running it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1221
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 5:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Locke09, you've spelled out the "demands" better than the Councilmembers have. To the specifics, wasn't the 7 member authority Ficano's proposal? Since when did his plan become their plan? As for the board make-up, why would OC get fewer members than WC when OC contributes more money? That doesn't make sense. As for "selling" Cobo, no one has made a good argument on why Detroit should retain ownership. How does it benefit Detroit if the city retains ownership and the financial liability that goes with the facility. If the city is concerned about the long-term value of the property if Cobo goes away, ask for language that requires control of the property to be turned back over to the city if Cobo stops being a convention center.

(Message edited by novine on March 08, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Locke09
Member
Username: Locke09

Post Number: 51
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 9:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine, before I respond, I forgot to include that members believe that the $288 million dollar expansion does not give Cobo the exhibit space or technological improvements that it needs to meet industry standards for a major convention center in the 21st century.

Ficano has been trying to broker a deal that everyone would agree to for some time. The 7-member authority is not council's original idea, but one that would have been more palatable to many than the current proposal. Admittedly, some don't think there should be an authority at all.

Ficano was originally also calling for far more expansion than the current proposal. So, when people say there were discussions on Cobo with everyone, you have to ask what was discussed, at what time. It seems that the last minute changes are what blind-sided people. I think they thought certain aspects were still being negotiated, so they were surprised to hear there was a signed deal.

There is language in the proposal that says the City can buy back Cobo for $20 million if Cobo stops being a convention center. But of course that means they could still tie up the land indefinitely by maintaining some form of convention center there.

There needn't be any financial liability to the City if the plan goes forward with just minor tweaks to the makeup of the authority and having it manage Cobo, but not own it.

That being said, I think that if Detroit retains ownership, the 5-member authority doesn't matter as much. Or, if there is a 7-member authority as Ficano proposed, then retaining ownership doesn't matter as much. When you put a 5-member authority with veto power, and no ownership together, it doesn't seem a good deal at all for Detroit to me. That's not Council's opinion, just mine. But it is the kind of discussion I think is reasonable to have, and it shouldn't stretch things out too long. Why not make some minor concessions that help neutralize the opposition?

Also, JoAnn Watson wrote an opinion in the Free Press on 2/13 that was fairly specific.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4247
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 11:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Somes links for those that want to delve more deeply into all of this:

Here's the linke to the bill that was passed:

2008 Senate Bill 1630/Public Act 554 of 2008

Locke brought this up, but it seems that bill was passed on December 10 with a seven-person board, but revised by Steve Tobocman a little over a week later on December 19 to reduce the number of members to five.

And, here are some exceprts of Councilwoman JoAnn Watson's concerns from the Free Press on February 13 that Locke mentions:

quote:

Cobo expansion proposal falls short

• First, the Cobo proposal does not meet the benchmark established as an industry standard for state-of-the-art convention centers. Major national and international conventions typically require at least 1 million square feet for exhibit and meeting space. The Cobo proposal is well below that requirement. The city would be settling for only mid-sized or smaller conventions. Why pay for 21st-Century expansion and settle for a 20th-Century mid-sized facility?

• Second, the $200-million price tag has been touted as a cost that can only be borne by transferring Cobo to a regional authority. Not so! The Grand Rapids convention center received more than $100 million in a state allocation to support renovation, without transferring that facility to an authority. Why couldn't Cobo's expansion be viewed as similarly worthy? Why not view Cobo as an economic engine with the potential of attracting economic stimulus resources from President Barack Obama?

• Third, Detroiters paid for the development of Cobo. Since the city owns Cobo, how can the state propose a regional authority composed of five people appointed by the governor, Wayne County, Oakland County, Macomb County and the mayor of Detroit without sponsoring a public hearing or discussion with Detroit citizens?

• Fourth, proponents of the current deal point out that the city would be "saving" $15 million in its annual subsidy from the operating budget. But they do not disclose that most municipal convention centers do not operate at a profit. They exist to galvanize convention and tourist traffic, while enhancing the city's image and strengthening the tax base.

Cobo's hosting of the auto show catalyzes $600 million for southeast Michigan; an annual $15-million deficit seems like a modest investment. Also, the $20-million onetime credit that the current deal proposes to offer from the city's municipal bond debt is negligible, considering that the deal would transfer all of the parking enterprises and jobs to the authority.

Furthermore, Cobo's riverfront location makes the land much more valuable than the bricks and mortar. Who in their right mind would transfer a premier riverfront location in the heart of a central business district without appropriate compensation?

Without question, Cobo must be expanded. However, neither the citizens of Detroit nor its elected officials should accept a take-it-or-leave-it proposition that should have started, not ended, at the City Council table.

So, I say yes to a responsible proposal for Cobo expansion! Regrettably, I must say no to a proposal that bypassed local legislators and local citizens, and I must say no to an expansion plan that will target only small and mid-sized conventions. We should seize this opportunity to recapture Cobo's greatness.




(Message edited by lmichigan on March 09, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 117
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 11:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree that the proposal falls short on some levels. The floor space still isn't what it should be. I'm still trying to figure out why that the redesign of Cobo Arena wasn't double or even triple decked to bring up floor space. It is a taller structure with more capability than what the design presented provided.

The assumption that 200 million of stimulus money will come is just wishful thinking. The City of Detroit alone asked for over 3.5 billion in the wish list provided to the State (at least at their website). That's not including other projects in cooperation with others, school district, etc. A whole lot of pie in the sky projects, but plenty of worthy ones. Which does she propose gets the axe?

And the assumption that most convention centers operate at a loss may be correct. However, in a city with a structural deficit such as Detroit's, that's no longer a cost that can be safely borne by the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 1958
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 11:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Please for the sake of the entire region, will a Detroiter step up to the plate and take out recall petitions on these idiots? If Kwame can get thrown out of office, maybe the other idiots can be removed as well. Then the true rebuilding can begin.


That wouldn't do much good, simply because the election laws make a recall difficult.

The first step is to get the language approved by local elections board. In the Kilpatrick case, that took approx. 3 months and a court fight, if I recall correctly.

From there, one has the act of collecting the required number of signatures within a certain period of time (120 days, if I recall correctly). After that comes the inevitable court challenges over the validity of those signatures.

Even if someone were to launch a recall effort today, it would tricky to get the recall question on the ballot before November. Since she's likely to be thrown out in November anyway - and since the feds are likely to indict her before then also - it really doesn't seem worth the effort.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4548
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 8:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Recall Conyers, Recall Collins NOW!
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1297
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 8:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Of course one thing that is incorrect in Joann Watson;s concerns is that DeVos Place (Grand Rapids convention center), is run by an authority, and run quite well. I attend a convention there every year, and it is miles ahead of Cobo in being modern. The only difference is size, DeVos Place is much smaller, but it attracts more convention business than Cobo, again because more than likely how it is run. If Cobo was modern and run by in a more organized professional way, just think of the possibilities. I am surprised none of the downtown hotels have spoken up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Melocoton
Member
Username: Melocoton

Post Number: 74
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 9:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Personally, this Cobo news exhausts me when the streetlights don't come on on my block, but nevertheless...A couple things don't make sense to me in Watson's article (which I'm just seeing now, for the first time--too bad more articulate voices have been drowned out). Since I know nothing about convention center standards, I'll take her word that the renovated Cobo falls short.
quote:

Fourth, proponents of the current deal point out that the city would be "saving" $15 million in its annual subsidy from the operating budget. But they do not disclose that most municipal convention centers do not operate at a profit. They exist to galvanize convention and tourist traffic, while enhancing the city's image and strengthening the tax base.


If that's the point of a convention center--the secondary business that it generates elsewhere-- then what difference does it makes who owns it? And why shouldn't the city save the money for neighborhood uses--police, recreation, infrastructure, etc.?
quote:

Third, Detroiters paid for the development of Cobo...how can the state propose a regional authority composed of five people appointed by the governor, Wayne County, Oakland County, Macomb County and the mayor of Detroit without sponsoring a public hearing or discussion with Detroit citizens?


Huh? Mad about not scheduling a public hearing? I guess this has more to do with Council being bypassed. Whatever else Cockrel did, not consulting some of this opposition, at least symbolically, was unwise. It might have forestalled a lot of the grandstanding that has occupied way too much of everyone's attention.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swiburn
Member
Username: Swiburn

Post Number: 274
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 9:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I feel sorry for the hotels and especially the Book Cadillac who have to put up with these idiots. This is terrible for future business.
Top of pageBottom of page

Locke09
Member
Username: Locke09

Post Number: 53
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 10:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Of course one thing that is incorrect in Joann Watson;s concerns is that DeVos Place (Grand Rapids convention center), is run by an authority, and run quite well.



Run by an authority and owned by an authority are two very different things. As I have mentioned a few times, it might be more palatable if Cobo were still owned by Detroit, but run by an authority, like the Zoo and other entities.

I keep getting the feeling that allowing Detroit to retain ownership was a "deal-breaker" for some entities. It is legitimate to ask, "Why?" and why wasn't it a deal-breaker for Grand Rapids.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rob_in_warren
Member
Username: Rob_in_warren

Post Number: 136
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:01 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Putting aside the depressing side effects, this latest BRC unplugged episode is funny.

It is too bad that Detroit's council is not elected by district. I'd love to watch the opposition's television ads against BRC.

The Cobo deal was to be this region's greatest move towards regional cooperation, and it has devolved into another Detroit joke.

one day...
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1222
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DeVos Place isn't owned by the City of Grand Rapids. It's owned by the Grand Rapids-Kent County Convention/Arena Authority and is managed by a private firm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D eVos_Place_Convention_Center

More details on the similarities and differences between the two authorities here:

http://www.mlive.com/business/ west-michigan/index.ssf/2009/0 3/grand_rapids_michigan_offici al.html
Top of pageBottom of page

Locke09
Member
Username: Locke09

Post Number: 56
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 2:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Novine (and Bob) for the correction.

The Grand Rapids Authority has two members from the City and two from the county, one from the state and two from the Convention Bureau.

The Cobo authority started out similar to this, and was changed. Ficano has stated that Oakland County did not want Wayne County and Detroit to be able to join together to form a majority.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1223
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 3:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Ficano has stated that Oakland County did not want Wayne County and Detroit to be able to join together to form a majority."

Are you going to address the point that OC's share of dollars into Cobo should give them more than 1 seat at the table?
Top of pageBottom of page

Locke09
Member
Username: Locke09

Post Number: 57
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 4:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Are you going to address the point that OC's share of dollars into Cobo should give them more than 1 seat at the table?



If you stick with the 5-member authority with veto power, then no one needs more than one seat.

If you switch to majority-rule, then you need an odd number. If you give Oakland Cty two seats, do you take one from Detroit and Wayne County, or add 1 to Detroit and Wayne County? I would argue that you have to add one, since Detroit and Wayne County, per reports, fund 80% of the total cost.

The 80% figure comes from their 60% share of the hotel/liquor tax, plus Wayne County was willing to give up its cigarette tax money to offset the need for Detroit to subsidize Cobo out of its general fund as it is currently doing (not sure if that made the final agreement). Plus the approx. $3 million in revenue from parking. In addition, Detroit will provide municipal services (e.g. police, fire and ems) at no cost to the authority.

Would a 9-member board be too large? I don't know.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 120
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 10:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You could make it a 2.3 million person board and there would still be unsatisfied people. Let the city keep "ownership" and transfer authority for running the day-to-day operations to the board selected. 5 is enough. Everyone has a say, and nobody is stealing anything. Only issue here is bonding authority, as well as the other transfers.

Keeping it in the city's name would not really change a thing would it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4250
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stosh, some people are unsatisfied with any deal. That doesn't mean that the concern over the size and composition of the authority isn't a legitimate issue, or that is shouldn't have been discussed more intensively.

Yes, why can't the city keep ownership and simply give over the management to a regional board? Something similar happened in my city of Lansing with our zoo, and there were the same kind of concerns. The compromise was that the city kept ownership, and the county oversees the operation of the zoo. The same thing was done with the Detroit Zoo as Locke said.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 201
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 11:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It just seems so foolish to throw out a deal that was five years in the making.

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