Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 286 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 8:40 pm: | |
I'm just curious, when will officials decide to make a new streetscape for ALL of Downtown. I thought it would be more "proper" if they did so because it won't make us seem like poor half-doers. Wouldn't doing this help somewhat raise the land value of the "least" demanded areas in the CBD? (Message edited by Urbanize on March 20, 2007) |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1109 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 9:10 pm: | |
Urbanize, have you seen the improvements on Woodward, Washington, Gratiot, Broadway in the last three years? Have you noticed the nice directional kiosks put up all over town? A lot of the other streets are just too narrow to do anything with, look at Congress and Shelby areas for example. I'm sure next on the list will be Michigan, but you have to get all the construction on the buildings done first! I think the City can find other things to do with their money right now than more streetscapes. They are broke. |
Hans57 Member Username: Hans57
Post Number: 63 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 9:15 pm: | |
I think that matching the street lights throughout downtown and midtown would create a little more continuity and attraction. |
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 290 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 9:32 pm: | |
"I think that matching the street lights throughout downtown and midtown would create a little more continuity and attraction" Thank you hans. I think streetscapes are what makes city center a bit more unique and attractive. Those street aren't too small actually. They can put the street lights (the single lighted version) along those streets and some small plants or something like that. I know those are the ONLY areas that are getting the attention. What about Grand River or Cass? |
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 291 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 9:35 pm: | |
"I'm sure next on the list will be Michigan, but you have to get all the construction on the buildings done first! I think the City can find other things to do with their money right now than more streetscapes. They are broke." I read your post, but I believe in having attraction first before development. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1115 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 9:48 pm: | |
Are you saying new sidewalks with stamped brick and garbage cans are more important than the Griswold or the Book Renovation?????? |
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 245 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 10:19 pm: | |
I think Detroit has done this it will take time to get all of downtown but there has been a hell of a start...like mentioned above, Broadway, washington, Campus MArtius, and many more have a uniform new streetscape |
Warrenite84 Member Username: Warrenite84
Post Number: 55 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 1:24 am: | |
I don't think the streetscape improvements made the Book Cadillac or Griswold developments happen. They did change people's perception by showing neat and well maintained areas were a priority for Detroit, in light of Super Bowl 40. Intelligently upgraded streetscapes bring developers, and people, not like the red tubing that once meandered down Wash. Blvd. |
Craig Member Username: Craig
Post Number: 66 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 1:32 am: | |
re: "broke Detroit" I agree, but it's broke in more ways than one. Last summer I was walking by the City-County Building (you know what I mean) and a City crew was tearing giant hosta plants from the ground to replant with ??? Who cares, you ask? You might if you were to price new giant hostas at Home Depot. My estimate is that those were $25 flowers, and there had to be at least 100 in a pile. More intelligence with the money that it does have is my opinion. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 3866 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 1:44 am: | |
Craig, that is awful!!! It's a wonder that city workers are that clueless (hate that word). But if they dig up the root ball with the plants, toss them on a truck, they could sell them on any outer burb street corner for $10 each!!! At Bordines in Rochester, the common "varigated" (green and off-white striped) Hostas with a 2 foot width cost over $150!!! (Owner of 9 Hosta varieties...) NOTE TO ALL FORUMERS: Collect all city "dumped" Hostas you can find... they have value!!! P.S. Just glad that scrappers don't know what they're worth!! |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3661 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 9:42 am: | |
quote:I'm just curious, when will officials decide to make a new streetscape for ALL of Downtown. I thought it would be more "proper" if they did so because it won't make us seem like poor half-doers. Wouldn't doing this help somewhat raise the land value of the "least" demanded areas in the CBD? The streetscapes done for the Superbowl on Washington, Woodward and Broadway cost $29 million, the majority of which came from state programs, foundations and corporate giving. A comprehensive streetscape for the CBD would run $300 million or more. That's two whole Book Cadillacs. That's nearly double the City's cumulative deficit. Think before asking silly questions. |
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 367 Registered: 09-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 10:35 am: | |
I think Fort could use some serious work - paving, lighting, and otherwise. Everything from Griswold south could use some touchups. Just an observation. |
Apbest Member Username: Apbest
Post Number: 493 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:18 am: | |
a simple 3 letter acronym can solve this problem B I D any takers? |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 566 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:48 am: | |
Apbest: Dream on. My guess is you're not a property owner whose tax burden will be yet further increased in order to pay for upgrades far from your own property. Right? (Message edited by 3rdworldcity on March 21, 2007) |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3662 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 2:14 pm: | |
A BID won't solve the problem. BIDS do not do infrastructure typically. The tax levy for a BID to do infrastructure would be far too onerous. Place a call to the Governor and the the State legislature as to why they have not done serious upkeep on the state trunk lines that run through the CBD such as Grand River, Fort, Jefferson et al. The work done on Woodward was done with by the City on state owned rights of way that had not been maintained by the state. |
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez
Post Number: 183 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 2:26 pm: | |
how many major cities rely on the state to do serious upkeep and streetscape work on the principal local downtown arteries within the central core of the cities (even if they are state trunk lines)? Just wondering. Bid up the BID.Whoo HOO! So 3rdworld--so 5 or 8 blocks from your property constitutes "far"? Main that's a pretty myopic vision. I guess the BID would have to put planters and a grassy median down Bagley to get your support. |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8593 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 2:45 pm: | |
I believe that the point Skulker was making is that M tagged roads like Woodward (M1) , Gratiot (M3?), etc are the responsibility of the State. The State has ignored those roads in Detroit for many, many years and the city stepped up to move forward with work that the State was not doing. |
Apbest Member Username: Apbest
Post Number: 496 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 2:46 pm: | |
UCCA is a bid, they've done infrastructure improvements in midtown. Seriously, property owners cant afford to not have a bid...look at what the bid in philadelphia did for their downtown... the Center City District or whatever it was called. There is a reason why every single urban development professional who comes to detroit says that downtown needs three key things 1)riverfront 2)transit 3) a bid http://modeldmedia.com/features/philly77.aspx (Message edited by apbest on March 21, 2007) |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3667 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 4:19 pm: | |
quote:UCCA is a bid, they've done infrastructure improvements in midtown. Wrong. UCCA is not a BID. There has yet to be a single BID authorized in the City of Detroit. They are a community development association that is bankrolled largely through voluntary contributions from stakeholders, foundations, corporations and grants. The infrastructure work being done on Woodward is paid from an assortment of MDOT enhancement dollars, Local Development Finance Authority dollars, and other cash raised for the specific project by UCCA. It was UCCAs idea to do the work and they worked closely with multiple partners to make it happen. The UCCA has not collected any sort of assessment to conduct the streetscape improvements. |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3668 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 4:22 pm: | |
quote:how many major cities rely on the state to do serious upkeep and streetscape work on the principal local downtown arteries within the central core of the cities (even if they are state trunk lines)? Just wondering. State law FORBIDS the City to do work on any state trunk line unless a written agreement is in place granting permission to the City which is generally limited to very specific and identified activities and those activities only. Its not the City "relying on the state", it is the state refusing to relinquish control. |
Rsa Member Username: Rsa
Post Number: 1054 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 4:25 pm: | |
ahhh! skulker's back! quick, everybody do their research! |
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce
Post Number: 711 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 4:32 pm: | |
Skulker - falling off the wagon while yelling obscenities at any building within earshot... (Message edited by Matt the deuce on March 21, 2007) |
Rrl Member Username: Rrl
Post Number: 762 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 7:41 pm: | |
Ahhh, so good to be able to once again read the prose of the Skulk...! Cheers bro. |
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez
Post Number: 186 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 9:19 pm: | |
quote:State law FORBIDS the City to do work on any state trunk line unless a written agreement is in place granting permission to the City which is generally limited to very specific and identified activities and those activities only. Including the sidewalks? Probably not.....is my guess. we're not really talking about re-routing or asphalt quality...more aesthetics, which is really more of a sidewalk issue, no? just trying to get an understanding of this state trunk law. |
Royce Member Username: Royce
Post Number: 2128 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 1:20 am: | |
You want to talk about a lack of aesthetics and sidewalk improvements or a shall I say a lack there of. Just before 9/11 the sidewalk next to Mariner's Church was narrowed to make and additional turn lane to the tunnel. Has anybody tried walking along this side? It is so narrow that only one person can walk along it at one time. I thought the City or whoever is responsible for that stretch of Jefferson would have moved the brick wall back along that stretch to make more room. There was a time when the trolley ran to that point and 4-6 people could walk side by side. In all the years that I have been on this forum no one has ever commented or complained, except me. Is this such a non-issue on this forum that people here don't have an opinion one way or the other? Just curious. Any thoughts? |
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez
Post Number: 189 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:41 am: | |
what's one less sidewalk in the motor city....another turn lane for the tunnel, now we're talkin! |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2215 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:03 am: | |
Interesting discussion. My opinion: 1. The State of Michigan, through MDOT, only cares about moving cars along its highways. It's quite obvious they don't give two shits about people who walk/bike/other. 2. Are the sidewalks really considered part of the state highway right-of-way? It seems to me that if this were the case, the improvements made on Woodward for Super Bowl XL could not have been made. Anyone feel like reading a bit of legal prose on this? 3. I didn't realize that benches, landscaping, and plantings counted as "infrastructure". Installation of streetlights and sidewalk pavers is probably beyond the means of most BIDs, but the BID can change lightbulbs, install trash cans and plant flowers, like they do in other cities. The BID we have here in Georgetown even operates a bus service that gets people to/from the Metro system, so I wouldn't be so quick to put limits on what BIDs are capable of doing. The upshot of BIDs is that they are going to be more responsive to the needs of businesses in the area, whereas the city government has to concern itself with a myriad of issues over the entire 139 sq miles. Why hasn't a BID been established in downtown Detroit yet? What is everyone waiting for? Sorry--I'm just tired of reading why things CAN'T be done in Detroit. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1120 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:28 am: | |
Dan you're being a bit harsh on MDOT. MDOT is both a transportation advocacy agency and an agency that happens to own all the big roads. Much of the agency spends quite a bit of their time working with local cities and villages. Check out context sensitive solutions: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0 ,1607,7-151-9621_41446---,00.h tml You must deal a lot with the engineers the work directly for the highway division. They are certainly biased, but hey thats what pays their bills! (Message edited by Detroitplanner on March 22, 2007) |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3679 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:03 pm: | |
Typically sidewalks are city rights of ways, but lighting and other elements that affect traffic circulation fall under the purview of "owner" of the street, be it the City, County or State. So, no - - ripping out cobra heads and replacing them with the Comerica standard along a state road is not something the City can do unilaterally. It must be done with some sort of approval / agreement from the State. In some cases on certain stretches of certain there are agreements that go back several decades between the City and State. Each individual case of improvements has its own set of circumstances that fall with a continuum of conditions. To Dan's comments (1)The characterization of MDOTs approach certainly is not borne out by their plans for MI Ave, which includes enhanced aesthetics, bike lanes and other pedestrian friendly pieces. Much like their executed enhancement of Gratiot and pending enhancement of Grand River. Given that they are responsible primarily for high volume freeways and thoroughfares, it is unsurprising that they do tend to have a view towards volume management and transportation safety. Within urban contexts they do have programs that respect pedestrian and quality of life issues. (2) Earlier posts indicated that such work is done under bilateral agreements between the State and the local municipality. A thinking person could safely assume that if work WAS done that bilateral agreements must have been executed. (3) The "infrastructure" work that UCCA (which again, is NOT a BID) is coordinating is not simply "planters and benches". It IS new sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, curb cuts, street lighting, pedestrian signalization, public and private utility conduit improvements and street trees. Something that BIDs typically do not do. Then again, this level of work would be obvious to those actually encountering the work...and not making assumptions from afar. State enabling BID legislation was not passed until about 2-3 years ago, thanks to Gov. Granholm's push to move it forward. The City Council axed the BID in the CBD, even though the BID was approved overwhelmingly by the building owners. The DDP is working to pass the BID with the new Council. Again, this is common knowledge for those here in Detroit. Perhaps before assuming certain postures and conclusions, one would think to politely ask why a BID is not in place. And please do not tell me that a person living in DC does not understand how politics and special / partisan interests may derail good policy / programs. |
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522
Post Number: 205 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 2:57 pm: | |
quote:Its not the City "relying on the state", it is the state refusing to relinquish control. Or the "broke" city not being able to find their 12.5% of the cost. |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 568 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 3:56 pm: | |
Skulker: You are mis-stating the facts when you state the prior BID attempt was "overwhelmingly" approved by the landowners. The Council rejected the BID attempt 8 to 1 (?) for many good reasons. I was a vocal supporter of the opponent's campaign to defeat the BID. If I still own real estate in downtown Detroit when the next BID attempt is promoted, I would support it (for whatever that's worth) provided the glaring deficiencies and inequities of the previous attempt were cured or eliminated. (The cost to me of a successful BID attempt would have been nickles and dimes but I opposed it and it terms more for philosophical reasons than anything.) |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2223 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:10 pm: | |
quote:The characterization of MDOTs approach certainly is not borne out by their plans for MI Ave, which includes enhanced aesthetics, bike lanes and other pedestrian friendly pieces. Much like their executed enhancement of Gratiot and pending enhancement of Grand River. Given that they are responsible primarily for high volume freeways and thoroughfares, it is unsurprising that they do tend to have a view towards volume management and transportation safety. Within urban contexts they do have programs that respect pedestrian and quality of life issues. Then this is a new facet of MDOT with which I am not familiar. Could it be that Gloria Jeff understands more than just cars? |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3689 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:24 pm: | |
Well, lets clarify some things then if one thinks I am exaggerating. And lest someone think I am making this all up, one of the rare instances that the Metro Times covered a topic accurately can be found here ... http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=5491 Statutorily the only way the Council gets to vote on the BID is if the affected landowners vote to accept BID and then forward it to CC for approval. The vote is based on assessed value. The folks carrying the heaviest burden get a proportional vote. The vote was 80% in favor of the BID. My characterization of "overwhelmingly supported" is also used by the Metro Times. The article does indicate that some small business owners expressed resistance to the concept. Tellingly, the two most vocal of these non-property owners closed up their operations within a year of CC killing the proposal. One was even in the process of closing down already. I am sure the 80% of the yea voters and the rest of the Detroit appreciate your machinations at Council over the principle of losing some pocket change. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1122 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:28 pm: | |
Gloria Jeff did not last a year at MDOT Dan, she has been in LA since 2005. Remember Gloria Jeff ran FTA not FHWA. Its a dammed shame but Michigan politics ran her out of town. Best dammed planner/engineer combo for the position could not survive the politicos. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on March 22, 2007) |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2225 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:32 pm: | |
^Thanks for correcting me. |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3690 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:34 pm: | |
quote:Then this is a new facet of MDOT with which I am not familiar. Could it be that Gloria Jeff understands more than just cars? Dan, this is an object lesson in why people get frustrated with you. Often times you present your statements and opinions as fact when your information is dated, inaccurate or does not reflect robust background on particular issues. This "new facet" has been around for several years and is fairly well known here in Detroit. For example, the planning for Michigan Avenue that include the elements I previously listed started more than six years ago, with the all funding sources only recently being secured for these enhancements. For example, you may wish to consider the fact that Gloria Jeff has been the director of the Los Angeles Transportation Department since March 20, 2006. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2227 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:42 pm: | |
I do recall reading about the reconfiguration of Michigan Avenue. MDOT has a strong history, though, of doing little more than building new highways and widening roads--even in defiance of the wishes of the local community (MLUI has a pretty good chronicle of this). This hasn't changed in essence. If the state actually had the money, the I-75 widening would be moving forward. Like most state highway departments, they only look to move as many cars as quickly as possbile. |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 570 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 5:29 pm: | |
Skulker: Just what I said. 80% IN NUMBER of property owners did not support the BID. People should read the Metro Times account; thanks for posting it. The owners with highest assessments were given a disproportionate share of the votes, yet their BID liability was capped at a fraction of what they would have been based on those assessments. The BID proposal was defective in many more ways, namely the area involved, the absolute certainty that none of the outlying property owners would ever directly benefit from any of their BID taxes, and so on ad infinitum. There were many more reasons justifying, no, mandating its rejection by the Council. They might not be the best and brightest, but they can still read English and aren't totally stupid. Try the same crap again and it will be rejected again. |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3697 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 5:50 pm: | |
There is no perfect way to set the voting formula. The weighting formula used was one that has been been used around the country and has been shown to being the closest to fair. Imagine if there was no cap [and that cap is quite high] and if the vote was by one property = one vote only. One operator of four small parking lots of very nominal value under four separate LLCs voting yes (remember one property = one vote) would counteract the no votes of you, General Motors and Compuware, forcing them and YOU in to a significant new financial burden. Is that fair? Didn't think so. And there are many many more little lot owners out there that could squeeze other property owners. ParkRite could make life very difficult for you as a property owner. What formula do YOU suggest that would be reasonably equitable to all? BTW, lets do the math on the figures cited by the owners of the Buhl. They estimated an additional $65,000 a year in levy, which would be passed on to their tenants. The Buhl is roughly 400,000 square feet. That work out to about 16 cents per foot for the year, or barely over a penny per foot per month. As you noted, chump change. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1127 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 9:21 pm: | |
Sulker, don't be so hard on Dan, I worked fairly close with Gloria. His facts are fairly accurate and he has well thought out arguments. SO some of his stuff is dated, its not that big of a deal. He obviously cares and is trying to be constructive. You're just giving her offical date Sulker, she was gone long before then. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on March 22, 2007) |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 575 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 9:59 pm: | |
W/o giving much thought to the matter, no cap on tax and votes based on actual taxes paid. Owe $2000 in taxes under the formula, and get 2000 votes. If GM wants to pay the tax based on its assessment, then it get the votes that go along with it. Also, restrict the area of the BID so the tax dollars get spent in the area where the taxpayers property is located. Under the previous proposal, the amount of tax dollars to be collected per year wouldn't begin to provide the funds to carry out all the promised programs except in the heart of the CBD and there would be no benefits to the many taxpayers whose properties were not in the heart of the CBD. Also, different types of properties, as I recall, were treated differently but I don't recall how |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1132 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:55 pm: | |
80 percent of a streetscape would most likely be paid for through MDOT's enhancement program; with the DDA and the city kicking in matching funds. All this talk about BIDS is pretty useless as a similar organization already exists downtown. I just don't see the point in adding to the beauracracy. http://www.degc.org/main.cfm?l ocation=5 |
Skulker Member Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3702 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 11:16 am: | |
DP: Gloria Jeff actually was a much better friend to urban environments that she is usually given credit for. To blame her for planning to widen freeways like I-75 when elected leadership refuses to support mass transit and she is being directed to do so by her superiors is a facile argument. Looking more closely at her policies for urban environments and how much was accomplished under the radar of the legislature, I think she did about as much as any person could do in that situation without losing their job. Her leaving for LA was based entirely on her realizing that there would be no mass transit in MI in her career time and thats what she wanted to work more with. She went where she could do some good. Dan has a long history of telling this forum all sorts of things that are not based on current or accurate knowledge about local information / conditions. I was merely using the dated information about Gloria as an example of why myself and many others give him grief for his often imperious and condescending attitude when his information is inaccurate. If ya got the good info, go ahead and be that way. If you don't, check facts and rethink as necessary. Too often this does not happen with DiDC. His characterization of MDOT was a typical blustery, dogmatic position and not at all nuanced or informed about the realities of what MDOT had been quietly doing under Ms. Jeff. |
Bvos Member Username: Bvos
Post Number: 2139 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 10:08 pm: | |
The purpose of a BID is to pay for maintenance and cleaning downtown whereas a DDA (which is staffed by DEGC in dwtn Det.) is typically focused on infrastructure improvements, creating incentives to make public and private projects happen, helping cut through the red tape to make projects happen, etc. So the DDA can help pay for the infrastructure installation, but they typically do not have the funding to pay for the cleaning and maintenance of the infrastructure. A BID is set up to clean and maintain the infrastructure put in by a DDA when a city's DPW dept. doesn't have the funding and/or know how to do proper cleaning and maintenance. So while it sucks a little that you have to pay a few hundred bucks more into a BID, you get much more back that what you put into the BID through the services they provide. Without the BID you'll get what you had before Penske did the demonstration BID: trash, graffiti, urine, etc. everywhere. It seems like it's a no brainer. |
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 473 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 7:14 pm: | |
Ok folks, I see there's a big unfinished argument. Donwtown really does need a "BID". The streetlights along Woodward are already turning into crap with half-working lights and light bulbs out. The median on gratiot doesn't look like it's been tampered with since when they made it. Howevever, we need folks to create a decent streetscape through all of downtown, as it would make it seem more like a CBD. As stated before, you can plant trees and small little squares thing with the plants with the streelights along gratiot, but with just one. |