  Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 265 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.136.144.196 |
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/METRO/512230353 This is one of the reason why I dislike our local media they take shots at the city even it doesn't deserve it. How much do wanna bet the area hadn't been expanded there'd be an "Facade grant money goes unused, building owners outside of taget area upset as they are denided fixes" article. So either way their suburbanite readers could write in(or post online) to complain about the city (Message edited by eric on December 23, 2005) (Message edited by eric on December 23, 2005) (Message edited by eric on December 24, 2005) (Message edited by eric on December 24, 2005) | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1668 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.105.157 |
I love the incorrect quote (or did they get it right?)... "It's wonderfully inconclusive" Rothwell said.... INCONCLUSIVE means failing to lead to, or result in a conclusion.  | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 214 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.43.81.191 |
Umm, what was so bad about that article? It was hardly "taking potshots at the city." It was discussing real issues and included quotes from Kwame on how he intended to deal with them. Please provide me with specific quotes from that article that you think are unfair, because I don't see them. I thought the article had an overall positive tone, with the main thesis being that Kwame is actively and aggressively trying to fix the city's budget problems. | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 288 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.10.63.140 |
pretty good article actually, with some research done as well....this program looks promising | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 266 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.136.144.196 |
My bad I linked the wrong article http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/M ETRO/512230353 | ||
Drm Member Username: Drm Post Number: 763 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.248.55.167 |
I'd hardly call the Penobscot Building and Guardian Building "posh spots". Beautiful old buildings with great potential, maybe, but also suffering from high vacancy rates. And there aren't any top law firms in either of them. In addition, the Detroit Opera house is owned by a non-profit. Knock those 3 off the list. This is either intentional Detroit-bashing or an article written by ignorant folks unfamiliar with Detroit. The real issue, if there even is one, is that the company of a DDA board member received the management contract and also received grants for property it owned. This is something that should never have been allowed to happen as it taints the reputations of both the DDA and the facade improvement program. Either Madison should have resigned from the board or another Detroit-based company should have been selected that didn't have ties to the DDA board. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 268 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.136.144.196 |
I absolutely think this was intentional they intended to make the grant money is being misused. The News is getting the exact reaction it wanted in its poll
| ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 282 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.242.223.79 |
Eric, the Detroit News Forums are pathetic. Hell I'm sure if an article was posted about the miracles of Christ, Detroit would still get bashed. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the opinions on those forums came from the staff's ranting. | ||
Digitaldom Member Username: Digitaldom Post Number: 397 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 67.149.110.53 |
Not seeing Detroit bashing in the article what so ever. I see criticism of the way the funds are being spend. Where are you getting the Detroit bashing from? Is anything negative about anything in Detroit - "Detroit Bashing"? This type of article that keeps government in check. The author did the research and presented a story. I am on the fence on this issue to be honest of funding though.. Not enough information presented to make a true say of good or bad.. When they spoke to the owner of the bar that could not get money; I am curious they did not provide the framework of what was required to get the funding or what was deemed proper funding? Why was this owner denied funding that the planning council required? I know I heard rumors on this forum that the process was rather complicated and made the effort not worth the price. Seems this was a good ole boys club.. But in the same right budgets are budgets, spend it or lose it.. The business world is weird like that.. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 269 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.136.144.196 |
It's bash when the critism is unfair and unbalanced. They framed this story as a give away to "posh" buildings and as a result the buildings in need are being the ignored. The headline and opening paragraphs says it all. The reason why their still "decrepit" storefronts along Woodward is that "posh" buildings are getting the money. The reponses to the article I posted reflect exactly how the story framed as a misuse of funds The real issue that those owner can't get financing or won't participate is largley igonored. A fair article would've focused on this instead trying the create scandal where there is none. Owner wasn't denied by a bank not by city. The city goes 50/50 on any work up 150K. If you're doing 200K of work you get 100K, 300 and beyond you get the full 150 any additional cost are yours. How complitcated the process it is I don't know As for how the money was given out I think the city did the right things Who's to decided if an owner deserves more than someone else 50/50 was the best way to go, unfortunately that some people can't afford their share. There're no less than 7 buildings on Woodward being work on and plenty of buildings outside Broadway, Woodward and Washington that need work. (Message edited by eric on December 25, 2005) |
