  Carman Member Username: Carman Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2008 |
What happened? News reports are there were a couple of hundred people. Hardly resounding. Maybe Detroiters are not falling for the race bait of Mildred, Rhonda and Sam Riddle. I am not sure if it is a good or bad deal, but am encouraged that people are not falling for the rhetoric | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 100 Registered: 02-2009 |
Carmen, The Detroit News reports that more than 500 people "packed" a church. If the church was packed, that implies the rally was well-attended. Why are you accusing Mildred of race-baiting? She has said repeatedly that this is not about race. She has also denounced any attempts to make it about race. Why are you encouraged if you don't know whether this is a good deal or a bad deal? If you haven't thoroughly evaluated it, how are you able to comment? It would be a mistake to underestimate the ability of well-educated and well-informed Detroiters to see that this deal is not all it's cracked up to be. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1678 Registered: 05-2008 |
This "Cobo Deal" as far as Monica and the rest are concerned is really a, "Let's ruin Cockrel's chances of becoming Mayor" initiative. Plain and simple. | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 101 Registered: 02-2009 |
So, everyone who thinks this is not a good deal and that it can be improved is only trying to ruin Cockrel's chances of becoming mayor? | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 958 Registered: 01-2005 |
In my experience this is what happened at the rally: the reporter asked an officiant of the church or of the rally for information about how many people the church holds and was told 500. The reporter heard a speaker say that the Church was "packed" - ergo 500 people attended the rally. But probaly quite a bit less than that - and most of those the troops of:Malik Shabazz and Horace Sheffield. My neighbor troops around to all their protests. She is an elederly white woman who latched on to them when she was in City hall ten years ago to protest her arrest for assaulting a police officer. They pick her up and take her. I'm sure she's part of a legion of mentally-ill misfits that they . No doubt my neighbor and people just like her were in the Church. I know she was downtown a few months ago with Shabazz and Sheffield protesting that Freman Hendrix got a mortgage from Comerica - like it was a special deal for politicians only. Look that protest up in the Michigan Citizen. You'll see how these things go. This re: crowd counting from Wikipedia: "Crowd counting is a technique used to count or estimate the number of people in a crowd. At ticketed events, turnstiles are often used to precisely count the number of people entering a venue. At unticketed events, especially events that take place in the streets or a park rather than an enclosed venue, crowd counting is more difficult and less precise. For many events, especially political rallies or protests, the number of people in a crowd carries political significance and counts are controversial. For instance, the global protests against the Iraq war saw many protests at which widely differing counts were offered by organizers on one side and the police on the other. Another memorable incident occurred when Louis Farrakhan threatened to sue the Washington, D.C. Park Police for announcing that only 400,000 people attended the 1995 Million Man March he organized." | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1246 Registered: 07-2007 |
"So, everyone who thinks this is not a good deal and that it can be improved is only trying to ruin Cockrel's chances of becoming mayor?" Locke09, you need to get over the idea that there's some better plan out there. No one besides Monica and her cohorts on Council want to renegotiate the agreement that was reached for Cobo. I'm sure there are a 1000 different scenarios you could dream up that would make it a better deal for anyone or everyone involved. But no one else is interested in revisiting the proposal. The choice Detroit City Council has is to accept the deal that was presented or walk away and find a way to finance Cobo when the flow of money coming in from outside of Detroit ends. | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 102 Registered: 02-2009 |
quote: I'm not going to just get over any idea. What a different world it would be if everyone who was told to "get over it" did. "Get over it" "Be grateful" "Take it or leave it" Those are similar to the phrase: "Because I said so." All too often they mean there is no logical argument, just a refusal to deal with the issues. I didn't receive that well as a child and I definitely don't receive it now that I am very grown. That no one is interested in revisiting the proposal is also irrelevant. No one is ever interested in doing anything that reduces their share in resources or power. They usually have to be compelled to do so. So, you might lose the battle, but you have to be willing to fight to the end. | ||
Roq Member Username: Roq Post Number: 21 Registered: 02-2009 |
"Locke09, you need to get over the idea that there's some better plan out there." Exactly. I love how people who think this isn't a good deal are certain the other parties in the deal, such as Oakland County, are going to continue to work on a plan that will be acceptable to Detroit. NOT going to happen. There was a deal, they didn't take it and now the issue is done and the City will have to figure out how to pay for the upkeep on Cobo themselves. | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 959 Registered: 01-2005 |
"That no one is interested in revisiting the proposal is also irrelevant." How so? Who is going to make Oakland/Macomb counties re-visit "the proposal"? Detroit cannot force anybody to do anything. Detroit no longer has the clout, the votes or the syypathies that it once commanded. | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 107 Registered: 02-2009 |
All sides should be willing to negotiate a new deal. They cannot force anyone to do something if one of the parties doesn't want to do it. I agree that Detroit is better off taking the deal that is on the table right now rather than rejecting it.. but there could have been a better plan created. Why is Detroit not allowed to ask for a better plan? and this goes to any of the other parties. TRUE regionalism requires cooperation from all sides.. and all sides should be willing to work together to come to the best possible plan And yes.... city council has made it so much harder to cooperate with, due to their fantastically outrageous antics. But, at least we now have a reputable mayor to work with. I say all sides, if they REALLY want regionalism, should not be saying "take it or leave it" That's not how it works in a successful region, which Southeastern Michigan is NOT. | ||
Carman Member Username: Carman Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2008 |
Locke09, To your original response to me. You are right when you say that Mildred is always saying it is not about race. But that is all she says. In all of her dialogue it is "they are doing this" and "the five brave women standing up to outside forces". Rhonda is always playing the suburb connection to the Regional Authority. Sam Riddle said "they" have turned in "their sheets" for a keyboard. Who are they? So you see it is very easy to say it isn't about race. It is another thing to discount race in the different views on the issue. They simply have not done that. And also, my encouragement is that most have turned away from this race baiting. To be encouraged by that, I don't need an opionion on "the deal". PS: Remember the phrase, "gutbucket, buffoonery and foolishness"? My, how things change. | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 103 Registered: 02-2009 |
Southwestmap, It's irrelevant only in the context of my response to the suggestion that I should just get over it. In that context, people throughout history have been told there's nothing that can be done, there's no one who will listen, they don't have any power, etc. If everyone listened to those kinds of arguments we wouldn't even have the United States of America. Fortunately, there are those who do not pay attention to those arguments. They don't always win, but they make it harder and harder for people to pretend that everyone is happy with the status quo. If you tell me you are not willing to even listen to my argument, that is not going to stop me from putting it forth. You will have to show yourself to be the one who is actually uncooperative and unreasonable (provided my argument is based on reason, of course). | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 960 Registered: 01-2005 |
You are about four years too late with your arguments. | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 104 Registered: 02-2009 |
Carman, Granted there are callers to the show who are allowed to spew a lot of rhetoric. The caller "Rhonda" is one who often does not even fully understand what the person she is disagreeing with has actually said. Neither she nor Mildred listens carefully enough. I've said that before. But, I still disagree with you that any of what they have done is race-baiting. It's economic. It's too convenient to use race-baiting as a diversion from the issues. I'm sure you know that people might strongly disagree on some issues and come together in agreement on other issues. It happens all the time. So, I am not surprised that Mildred Gaddis has condemned the actions of various council members, but agrees with them on this issue. I see no contradiction in that per se. But, I had to laugh when I read your last line. Obviously you have listened to the show because you are right about the names that have been used to describe council members. There Mildred is indeed guilty of hypocrisy because she now condemns those who also call the council members names. Which is why I like to stay away from such things. You never know when it might come back to bite you. | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 105 Registered: 02-2009 |
Soutwestmap, This plan is not the plan that was worked on for four years. That plan called for a larger expansion and a different type of authority. That plan did not call for Cobo to be sold for $20 million. This is some last minute compromise concocted in a lame-duck session. If this plan took four years to develop, I am really scared. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1910 Registered: 12-2006 |
There are Detroit lawmakers who would like to come up with a new proposal which will be more beneficial to Detroit, and at the moment it is perfectly reasonable and logical for them to try to do this. More power to them. At the same time, I have not caught wind of any lawmakers in Oakland or Macomb County, or for that matter outstate, who favor revisiting the Cobo authority concept with such changes. So I think one of two things will happen, and I don't see any chance of anything else. Feel free to disagree if you know some fact or another that I don't. 1. Mayor Cockrel's veto will stand, in which case the Authority is formed under the existing legislation, takes over and upgrades Cobo. 2. Mayor Cockrel's veto will not stand, in which case no alternative legislation will get anywhere, the City retains Cobo, and it continues to crumble. I would like to think there's some third alternative but I just don't see it. Detroit lawmakers will propose new legislation under scenario #2, as well they ought, but I just can't find enough votes anywhere outside Detroit to give it a ghost of a chance of passage. The rest of the state is justifiably tired of this. Usually when I talk about things contentious, I end with "IMVHO" just to remind everyone. But not this time; these are observations, not opinion. (Message edited by professorscott on March 16, 2009) | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 950 Registered: 11-2007 |
It's a simple fact that Patterson believes, and in this case I happen to agree, that he gave a lot by agreeing to help finance Cobo through this regional plan. Detroit now has almost 5,000 hotel rooms downtown and can handle every event including the auto show. To expect Patterson to go back and give more is insulting to him as well as all Oakland and Macomb residents. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1248 Registered: 07-2007 |
"TRUE regionalism requires cooperation from all sides.. and all sides should be willing to work together to come to the best possible plan." True. Now what is your problem with what has been proposed? All parties came to the table, made concessions and an agreement was reached. But the Detroit City Council decided that they didn't like the agreement that the Mayor reached and have decided that they can force everyone back to the table for what they consider a better deal. Maybe they can but to act, as Locke09 does, that this agreement was reached without input from Detroit is rubbish. Detroit alone is the one acting like a petulant child. | ||
Carman Member Username: Carman Post Number: 23 Registered: 08-2008 |
OK Locke, at least we have some common ground here. I do believe it is economic, but the one's saying it (MG, Rhonda and Sam) are throwing in the "they" word in obvious reference. I am not sure they are aware that Cobo does and always will sit inside the Detroit borders and will positively affect ALL things around it, which on my map, reside in the city. The rep for the Operating Engineers gave a very compelling argument this morning that even MG could not discount. The next call is from Rhonda and she said he didn't make sense....it was almost embarassing for her. I guess I just find it strange how fast and hard they changed their tune on Council. What about Brenda Jones and Kenyatta? They were heroes a few months ago. Any word about them from the host or callers? | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 107 Registered: 02-2009 |
quote: The changes to the proposal Ficano was pushing last year are significant. I haven't heard anyone yet say there were pubic hearings or discussions with council about those specific changes. That would have been unlikely because they were rushed during the lame-duck session in Lansing. No one has disputed that. If they have, show me, I don't mind being corrected. I might be on board with you when you are talking about a 7-member authority with the City retaining ownership. You need to get back to me if you change it to a 5-member authority, the City giving up ownership and everyone having veto power. What's unreasonable about that? What was the rush in December 2008? | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 108 Registered: 02-2009 |
quote: The rep for the Operating Engineers said Cobo needed to be upgraded (agreed), a regional approach was best (agreed) and it would benefit the City to not have to supplement Cobo out of the general fund (agreed). When Rhonda called and said he didn't make sense, I confess that I tuned her out. He did make sense even though I didn't agree with his conclusion. I haven't heard anyone say anything negative about Brenda Jones or Kwame Kenyatta on the show, although they don't agree with the decision they made. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1249 Registered: 07-2007 |
"The changes to the proposal Ficano was pushing last year are significant. I haven't heard anyone yet say there were pubic hearings or discussions with council about those specific changes. That would have been unlikely because they were rushed during the lame-duck session in Lansing. No one has disputed that. If they have, show me, I don't mind being corrected. " Are you some kind of Ficano flack? You act like the Ficano proposal was the holy grail. It wasn't. You act like Detroit had signed onto the Ficano proposal. They didn't. The former Mayor rejected Ficano's claim that Detroit had agreed to his proposal. The only party that had agreed to Ficano's proposal is Ficano. Please explain to me how a proposal that no one but Ficano supported is the basis for judging all other proposals? | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 781 Registered: 04-2006 |
Quote "TRUE regionalism requires cooperation from all sides.. and all sides should be willing to work together to come to the best possible plan." End of Quote It also means we must all dig into our pockets and pay. That is how we saved the Zoo. | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 109 Registered: 02-2009 |
quote: You really should stop telling people what they "act like." That is more a matter of how you interpret things (falsely I might add) than anything the person has actually said or done. Ficano's proposal is the only one I've seen written so I reference components of it a lot and make no apologies for that. Now if Detroit rejected Ficano's proposal, how can you think that Detroit would be more receptive to a proposal that provides the City with less than that proposal did? Does that make any sense? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4291 Registered: 10-2003 |
Novine, you're usually so thoughtful, but the whole "get over it" attitude is so dismissive and thoughtless and the name-calling so inappropriate as to make me believe that you're able to turn your seeming thoughtfulness on and off like a light. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1250 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Novine, you're usually so thoughtful, but the whole "get over it" attitude is so dismissive and thoughtless and the name-calling so inappropriate as to make me believe that you're able to turn your seeming thoughtfulness on and off like a light." Everyone has their limits and I reached it with the shenanigans surrounding Cobo. I'm 100% behind the idea that the suburbs need to be team players in making our region a great place. That means stepping up and being partners with Detroit. In some situations, that means putting money behind the words so that it's more than just talk. But what I've seen with Cobo is comments by some in Detroit and here on DY that is completely disconnected from reality. Locke09 has been the biggest offender, in my opinion, repeating the claim that Detroit wasn't part of the discussion that led to the compromise that led to the creation of the Cobo legislation creating a regional authority. Were select members of the City Council part of that discussion? I don't know but for the sake of discussion, let's say that they were not. But the Mayors, both KK and KCJr., representing the city of Detroit were part of that discussion, one that goes back years, I might add. Detroit's elected state representatives and state senators were part of that discussion, representing the interests of the residents of Detroit. The state legislators helped draft, sponsored and passed the legislation that was approved by wide margins and signed by the Governor in Lansing. But because a handful of people who think they should have been included were not included, they've decided that their view should not only trump the position of the Mayor and the elected representatives and senators, but of everyone involved in creating the compromise. Compromise means everyone gives something up in the process. Brooks Patterson had to agree to extend the hotel and liquor taxes for a couple more decades to help finance the expansion. The proposed expansion is more square footage and cost than he wanted. But he still signed off on the deal so that it could move forward. Everyone here knows that I'm no Brooks Patterson fan. But instead of being an obstructionist, he agreed to give in on some issues to allow the overall package move forward. But that's not happening on the City Council's side. They don't believe that they have to compromise on anything. The attitude of those opposed to the proposal is that it's their way or the highway and that everyone else has to give more while Detroit takes. Well guess what? The other alternative is that everyone else walks away from the deal and says "we're done". That's what you do when you get into negotiations with unreasonable and irrational people. You don't continue to bargain in good faith because there is no good faith at work. If you all want to continue to defend that attitude and that position and that unwillingness to compromise, more power to you. See where it gets you at the end of the day. | ||
Locke09 Member Username: Locke09 Post Number: 111 Registered: 02-2009 |
If Detroiters do not believe this deal is the best deal then Detroiters have a right to continue to voice that opinion. What Novine harps on now is only one of a great many points I have made regarding the deal. It is the least of what I have outlined as concerns with the deal. Don't try to frame this as just an "you didn't bring us to the table" issue. None of the points I have made can be said to be unrealistic or "rubbish", except in the context that people have declared they refuse to revisit the deal. Oh yes, if something as important as an outright sale of Cobo for $20 million and a 5-member authority with everyone having veto power was not brought back to the Council and to the public, then I am going to continue to assert that insufficient input was given. I have never asserted that no one in Detroit was involved. Name-calling, anger, emotionalism and the like do not sway me. I actually pity the need to resort to that. People who claim to be fed up and think that justifies them calling names are ... well, I have been polite and I am going to continue to be polite. BTW Novine, you started with the "get over it" line almost from the beginning, as soon as it was clear I was not just going to slink away. Words, data and information shape opinions and decisions. Where they are inaccurate (even when they are mine), they should be corrected. Where there is something missing, they should be made whole. Where they are misleading (admittedly that is subjective), another point of view should be given. None of this should move a person to insults. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1253 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Oh yes, if something as important as an outright sale of Cobo for $20 million and a 5-member authority with everyone having veto power was not brought back to the Council and to the public, then I am going to continue to assert that insufficient input was given. I have never asserted that no one in Detroit was involved. " First, you've repeated multiple times that the sale of Cobo for $20 million was never part of the Ficano plan. That's false. http://www.coboformichigan.com /strategy.htm Second, you have harped on the lack of City Council involvement in multiple posts. To now spin it as "only one of a great many points I have made" is revisionist history. It's been your main point because there's very little else that you can hang your hat on for reopening this issue. As I said before, there are 1000 different ways that this deal could be put together. But the deal that was agreed to was the one that was put into the legislation. All the rest is people trying to spin justifications why some hypothetical deal is better than the deal that was finally approved in Lansing. I couldn't care less if you keep pounding the table with the call for a better deal. If it makes you feel better, more power to you. You can be part of the chorus in Detroit that's trying to deceive Detroit residents into thinking that there's some "better" alternative for Detroit that justifies destroying the only alternative that actually garnered agreement from everyone from the Mayor's office to the Governor. It's a false hope and one that's not based in reality. No one outside of Detroit is interested in reopening discussion on Cobo. They're moving on. Now's the time for those who share your view to start putting together a plan to operate Cobo that doesn't rely on the funding from the suburbs. That money stops flowing in just a couple of years and Detroit should have zero expectation that it will continue beyond that. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 929 Registered: 11-2003 |
It has been kind of sad to observe and listen to the usually clear-eyed Mildred Gaddis, Sam Riddle and Freman Hendrix continue with their loud and vocal crusade against the Ken Cockrel-brokered Cobo Center deal. While they aren't so delusional as to contest the Cobo deal on express race-based grounds like too many Detroiters have done, they have yet to come up with any economic (as opposed to political) reasons for a re-negotiation. All we are hearing are bromides like the deal is a giveaway, the land is more valuable, Detroit deserves more control on the authority, self determination can't be given away etc. But there's no real acknowledgement of the fundamental economics of the future of Cobo Center as a solely Detroit-owned "asset." That future almost certainly includes no repairs, no expansion and and perhaps even closure. Instead, while they are a lot less blatant about racism claims, the Gaddis/Riddle/Hendrix trio simply continue to stir up the "they're stealing our jewels" crowd. This is "ours" and you can't have it. It's an argument based primarily on pride, conceit and an unwillingness to give in to a deal in which Detroit had a weak hand and in which they think that white people got the upper hand on the black folks. They have not, or cannot look at it as a business deal. Smart businesspeople understand that you can't let pride control your decisions. This all begs the question, why does Detroit need to have ANY control over Cobo? The operation of a convention center is not a core service of a municipality. Especially one as financially strapped as Detroit. Regardless of who "controls" the facility, the direct economic benefits of that control will remain almost exclusively within the city. The facility itself doesn't actually make a profit. The benefit comes from spending by companies and people attending events. If my city gets the benefits, I don't care if the Livingston County Republican Party "controls" the place. But if one's actions are being controlled by a "these are my toys" mentality, sound public policy is bound to take a back seat. Gaddis/Riddle/Hendrix usually make so much sense on public policy issues, it's very hard to watch what they've done here regarding Cobo. | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 937 Registered: 04-2005 |
swingline, do you mind if i cut-n-paste your statement and use it as my official press release on the subject [even though i had to look up the word "bromide"]? it's what i've been thinking all along: skip the emotional debate and demagoguery, and just issue a sensible, tangible, articulate challenge to the cobo proposal. let's see what your studies say, city council - and let's negotiate. (and of course, council members, with all their credibility, have claimed they were not part of discussions - but that's been pretty heavily disputed.) i will also add that gaddis now appears to be against the light rail project. this, too, is regarded as a work by outside forces who wish to operate in the city without due consideration of the city's interests. i was incredulous when i listened to her show this morning - which i do less and less frequently these days. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 931 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thecarl, I have no "pride or conceit" of ownership of those words, LOL. Not sure what you're using them for, but go ahead. As for your mention of Ms. Gaddis and Woodward light rail, I did not hear the part of the show this morning when she may have expressed an opinion. The debate about the competing proposals is a complicated one involving lots of logistics and planning issues. But there's also some control issues. Lemme guess. Ms. Gaddis had some problem with the privately funded M1-RAIL project because of control issues and the city not getting a sufficient input. I did hear her interview with TRU's Megan Owens this morning. The interview included callers with questions, most of whom had some pretty unrealistic ideas about the capabilities of the initial phase of a light rail system. Ms. Owens exhibited the patience of a saint in politely responding to some of these folks who for some reason seemed to oppose the M1-RAIL plan. The topper was the pre-arranged first caller who was new State Rep. David Nathan from Detroit. This man started right off with Ms. Owens in a clearly adversarial/accusatory tone of voice by stating that he knew that private companies were involved in the planning of the project and he then demanded to know who or what companies were going to "profit" from M1-RAIL (implying that it was going to be some kind of cash cow for these people). This question immediately exposed him as mostly ignorant of the economic model that light rail and mass transit are ideally designed to promote. Ms. Owens gently answered that light rail projects do not directly generate profits for an operator, rather, they are designed to provide a foundation for broader economic development along their routes. He had a couple of other angry-toned comments and left the impression that he saw M1-RAIL as another outsider assault on Detroit. He was clueless and graceless. It was mind-boggling and had to be kind of sad for Ms. Owens who has worked tirelessly for years on light rail matters. So, what is next now? The right of way on Woodward is another jewel that we can't let suburbanites get hold of? Here's hoping that light rail does not get "derailed" by more race nonsense. | ||
65memories Member Username: 65memories Post Number: 463 Registered: 10-2003 |
What Novine and Swingline said. |
