Winery on Belle Isle?

**corktownyuppie** · August-23-12, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by KOMPOST

I must have missed the part where DetroitCityCellars stated that profits would go back into maintenance of the island. I was under the impression that this was a private, for-profit business he is proposing. The kind that are sold to people using words like "synergy" and "job creation" and "trickle down". All of which is fine...if we're talking about a business in the CBD. Not on Belle Isle, though.
Sorry, I'm extremely sceptical of this proposal.

Synergy, job creation, and trickle down have nothing to do with this.

The idea is that the winery would be paying its revenue to the island. The winery is PAYING the island to reside there. Yes, this is a private business. All that means is that once the winery has paid its monthly obligations to Belle Isle, they will get to keep anything extra. If the winery doesn't generate a lot of money to the island, they're still on the hook to pay their monthly obligation to the island.

Now I understand that those details have not been disclosed. And I think that reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the lease is fair. These details need to be vetted, debated, and discussed.

But to say that they are trying to "take something" from the people is short-sighted. We haven't even seen the proposal yet. The knee-jerk reaction of "Is it a business? Then get the hell out of here" is not constructive.

We say that we don't want to lose control of Belle Isle. Well the solution to that is to generate enough revenue for it to stay in operations. The solution is to make it an attractive place that can generate revenue. Revenue that will *stay on the island*. We can generate revenue by charging admission to the island. Or we can generate revenue by finding a 3rd party willing to run a business on the island. Or we can do both. And we can debate what kinds of businesses we would want or not want on the island. These are all fair points worth lots of debate.

Now to find a 3rd party willing to run a business on the island means that the 3rd party will be taking risks. If they are going to take risks, it's only natural that they will want to also have reward. This does not mean that we "sell the island" or that we work out "sweetheart deals". It means that Belle Isle needs to negotiate something that we can all agree is fair so that Belle Isle gets its necessary revenue and then the private company gets rewarded for running a successful business.

Now if you don't like that idea, and you want the profits to be shared with Belle Isle, I have no problem with that. In order to do that, though, it means Belle Isle needs to be willing to share some of the risks. This might mean that if the company is very, very successful, the company splits those profits over and above the revenue with the island. But if the company is struggling it might mean that Belle Isle gives up some of the rent its owed.

Risks and reward. Risks and reward.

Like I said, I'm not giving any developer or any idea a free pass. Of course not.

What I'm saying is that this notion that someone is trying to take something from us is paranoid -- and worse of all -- self destructive.

We all want a better island. I, for one, don't want A SINGLE PERSON excluded from it. We also don't want to lose control of the island.

Ok. So your choices are to generate revenue from admissions. Or generate revenue from operating some kind of business from the island.

No one is going "just pay for it". Belle Isle doesn't qualify for "Section 8". We don't have the money. We don't want to lose control.

I get that. So let's give this idea a fair shot. And if it's wrong, it's wrong! But saying that it's wrong because is a business doesn't make any sense.

**DetroitCityCellars** · August-23-12, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Synergy, job creation, and trickle down have nothing to do with this.

The idea is that the winery would be paying its revenue to the island. The winery is PAYING the island to reside there. Yes, this is a private business. All that means is that once the winery has paid its monthly obligations to Belle Isle, they will get to keep anything extra. If the winery doesn't generate a lot of money to the island, they're still on the hook to pay their monthly obligation to the island.

Now I understand that those details have not been disclosed. And I think that reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the lease is fair. These details need to be vetted, debated, and discussed.

But to say that they are trying to "take something" from the people is short-sighted. We haven't even seen the proposal yet. The knee-jerk reaction of "Is it a business? Then get the hell out of here" is not constructive.

We say that we don't want to lose control of Belle Isle. Well the solution to that is to generate enough revenue for it to stay in operations. The solution is to make it an attractive place that can generate revenue. Revenue that will *stay on the island*. We can generate revenue by charging admission to the island. Or we can generate revenue by finding a 3rd party willing to run a business on the island. Or we can do both. And we can debate what kinds of businesses we would want or not want on the island. These are all fair points worth lots of debate.

Now to find a 3rd party willing to run a business on the island means that the 3rd party will be taking risks. If they are going to take risks, it's only natural that they will want to also have reward. This does not mean that we "sell the island" or that we work out "sweetheart deals". It means that Belle Isle needs to negotiate something that we can all agree is fair so that Belle Isle gets its necessary revenue and then the private company gets rewarded for running a successful business.

Now if you don't like that idea, and you want the profits to be shared with Belle Isle, I have no problem with that. In order to do that, though, it means Belle Isle needs to be willing to share some of the risks. This might mean that if the company is very, very successful, the company splits those profits over and above the revenue with the island. But if the company is struggling it might mean that Belle Isle gives up some of the rent its owed.

Risks and reward. Risks and reward.

Like I said, I'm not giving any developer or any idea a free pass. Of course not.

What I'm saying is that this notion that someone is trying to take something from us is paranoid -- and worse of all -- self destructive.

We all want a better island. I, for one, don't want A SINGLE PERSON excluded from it. We also don't want to lose control of the island.

Ok. So your choices are to generate revenue from admissions. Or generate revenue from operating some kind of business from the island.

No one is going "just pay for it". Belle Isle doesn't qualify for "Section 8". We don't have the money. We don't want to lose control.

I get that. So let's give this idea a fair shot. And if it's wrong, it's wrong! But saying that it's wrong because is a business doesn't make any sense.

Corktown, your level headedness and contimued interest is appreciated. A project like this should be vetted to the full extent. I appreciate that you do not immediately villify us for the simple fact that we would like to turn a profit. A modest one at that. Belle Isle needs more help, ASAP.

**jt1** · August-24-12, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitCityCellars

Corktown, your level headedness and contimued interest is appreciated. A project like this should be vetted to the full extent. I appreciate that you do not immediately villify us for the simple fact that we would like to turn a profit. A modest one at that. Belle Isle needs more help, ASAP.

I'm curious - have you contacted or worked with FOBI yet?

**KOMPOST** · October-03-12, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

The Riverfront was turned over to a Conservancy and it's still open to the public.

Not trying to nitpick here, but I was stopped on my bike at "The Riverfront" one beautiful Saturday morning in July and told to pay $3.00 to ride through. True story.

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Synergy, job creation, and trickle down have nothing to do with this.

6:32 of the video.

**corktownyuppie** · October-03-12, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by KOMPOST

Not trying to nitpick here, but I was stopped on my bike at "The Riverfront" one beautiful Saturday morning in July and told to pay $3.00 to ride through. True story.

6:32 of the video.

I don't deny the truth of your statement. I do think it warrants some explanation. I run through the riverfront 3 days a week. I've never been asked to pay money, nor have I ever seen anyone collecting money.

That's not to say that it hasn't happened. I'm just saying that I'd like to hear more about why.

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
Synergy, job creation, and trickle down have nothing to do with this.

6:32 of the video.

I'm saying they have nothing to do with it this from the point of view of the citizen. The city's role is to provide services, not jobs. I would love for it to create 20 jobs. I would love even more for it to create 200 jobs. But I don't really care if that's the outcome, because that's not its objective.