Detroit delays decision on Michigan Central Depot

Darren A. Nichols / The Detroit News

http://tiny.cc/om5JQ

Quote:

---

The Detroit City Council today delayed a decision on tearing down the Michigan Central Depot by three weeks after its owners asked officials to give them one more chance to redevelop the station.

Manuel "Matty" Moroun, owner of the Bridge Co. and the train station, has pitched saving the building from the wrecking ball by selling it to the federal government so it can be converted to a base for Homeland Security and Border Patrol operations in Detroit.

During a brief discussion this morning, attorney William Seikaly said the company wants more time to work on a proposal and update the council on the progress.

"We ought to be working together to figure out a way to develop, rather than destroy, an icon of the community," Seikaly said. "My client has been working aggressively for at least 10 years to try and come up with development projects. It is not a question of how long the city should wait, it's how long it will take. Our proposal is a reasonable proposal. Instead of throwing stones, we ought to be working together."

During today's hearing, the three-member Public Health and Safety Committee decided to continue discussing the issue after officials from the Bridge Co. said they weren't properly notified of the city's intentions.

Seikaly repeated assertions from the Bridge Co. that vandals break into the depot through property owned by the city.

---

Hahaha... "My client has been working aggressively for at least 10 years to try and come up with development projects."

They really take everyone for idiots. I think MCS was once beautiful, but it's beyond repair and I hope the city tears it down to send a message to Moroun. Start with MCS, then move on to every other building, maybe the slumlords will get the hint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GREENTROIT

Hahaha... "My client has been working aggressively for at least 10 years to try and come up with development projects."

They really take everyone for idiots. I think MCS was once beautiful, but it's beyond repair and I hope the city tears it down to send a message to Moroun. Start with MCS, then move on to every other building, maybe the slumlords will get the hint.

---

The hint? That the city will use public funds to tear down your abandoned property, and likely never will be able to collect the funds from you for doing so?

And the MCS is beyond repair like the Book Cadillac and Fort Shelby once were?

Nobody has come up with a feasible way to rehab MCS. And what is it going to cost to rehab it, $100 Million?

The hint is that if you allow your owned and abandoned properties to rot, then the city will take them. I understand everyones attachment to MCS and I wish it could come back to life, but I don't see it happening in the next 20 years. Nobody has come up with an idea for the building let alone how to fund what would be an incredibly expensive rehab.

as far as i'm concerned that thing could stand there in its current state for years to come, if the city, or maroun would actually attempt to seal the place up. not with plywood, not with chain link fence. i want steel plating and/or bricks.

Once again, the City didn't have its act together when it had the DIBC in the room. This happens every time. Let's see who has their act together once they get to court.

Reminiscent of Prophet Jones.

"I'm gonna walk on the water" Newscrews gather and he exclaims "Today is not a good day to walk on the water"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Reminiscent of Prophet Jones.

"I'm gonna walk on the water" Newscrews gather and he exclaims "Today is not a good day to walk on the water"

---

LMFAO. You were swinging for the fences on that one.

the border people can occupy the tower.

lets turn the station back to the use it was built for: a train station.

it should be the station for the Chicago to Detroit high speed rail and a hub for a commuter rail system. It can also be a link to a possible Windsor - Toronto - Montreal - Quebec high speed corridor.

don't let people like those on the city council crush a vision of what this station really should be. is a train station that far fetched? I mean, compared to other ideas i've heard... like turning into a vertical farm... it is very reasonable.

And the city changing their mind once again is a sign that with a enough public support, this train station can be renovated to its former glory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GREENTROIT

The hint is that if you allow your owned and abandoned properties to rot, then the city will take them. I understand everyones attachment to MCS and I wish it could come back to life, but I don't see it happening in the next 20 years. Nobody has come up with an idea for the building let alone how to fund what would be an incredibly expensive rehab.

---

Yeah, and if you search through the archives of this forum, you'll find that a few thousand people said the exact same thing about the Book-Cadillac Hotel.

Really. I'm not kidding. Click on "search site" to the left to find all of the people who said that there was no chance of the B-C ever opening.

Oh, and the really interesting thing is that, in the couple of years since the Book-Cadillac deal was completed, the value of the historic preservation tax credit [[one of the many levels of financing involved in that deal) jumped from 25% of qualifying expenses to 40%.

So, you're probably right. There's absolutely no way in which MCS could ever be brought back on-line within the next couple of years.

Instead, we should spend the 10 years or so in a prolonged and very expensive legal fight with the building's owner to get the thing torn down. I mean, we got lots of cash to burn in this town so why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

Once again, the City didn't have its act together when it had the DIBC in the room. This happens every time. Let's see who has their act together once they get to court.

---

As one of the people who was in the room for this hearing, I'm going to stick up for the City on this one. [[Yes, you should mark this day on your calendar. This happens that rarely.)

The hearing yesterday concerned both MCS and one of vacant warehouses that the Bridge Company also owns that are adjacent to MCS. A timely notice of the hearing went out specifying that the hearing would concern those two buildings; one that specified the properties in question by both their address and the full legal description for that parcel of land.

The address for the warehouse in question, according to the City of Detroit's records, is 2231 Dalzelle. It was one of four buildings that were once on that parcel of land.

The objection that attorney's for the owner raised was that their records show that they building known as 2231 Dalzelle was demolished already. The only building remaining on that parcel has a different address posted on the side of it. [[Although, there was no indication at the hearing as to how long that different address has been affixed to the property.)

Attorneys for the owner contend that without a proper notice being issued, the entire hearing was improper.

The important point, in my opinion, is that the notice in question included the full legal description of the parcel of land that the building is on. Therefore, one could make an argument that the notice applied to any building on the land so described.

The entire point about the notice was, in my opinion, a stalling tactic. It's one of the thousand or so such tactics that we will likely see if the City of Detroit decides to push forward in demolishing the MCS and attempting to bill the owners for that cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

As one of the people who was in the room for this hearing, I'm going to stick up for the City on this one. [[Yes, you should mark this day on your calendar. This happens that rarely.)

The hearing yesterday concerned both MCS and one of vacant warehouses that the Bridge Company also owns that are adjacent to MCS. A timely notice of the hearing went out specifying that the hearing would concern those two buildings; one that specified the properties in question by both their address and the full legal description for that parcel of land.

The address for the warehouse in question, according to the City of Detroit's records, is 2231 Dalzelle. It was one of four buildings that were once on that parcel of land.

The objection that attorney's for the owner raised was that their records show that they building known as 2231 Dalzelle was demolished already. The only building remaining on that parcel has a different address posted on the side of it. [[Although, there was no indication at the hearing as to how long that different address has been affixed to the property.)

Attorneys for the owner contend that without a proper notice being issued, the entire hearing was improper.

The important point, in my opinion, is that the notice in question included the full legal description of the parcel of land that the building is on. Therefore, one could make an argument that the notice applied to any building on the land so described.

The entire point about the notice was, in my opinion, a stalling tactic. It's one of the thousand or so such tactics that we will likely see if the City of Detroit decides to push forward in demolishing the MCS and attempting to bill the owners for that cost.

---

If the Building Department had its act together, it would have been able to dispute the information presented by the DIBC. The Law Department wasn't able to provide any real assistance, as they didn't even bother to show up for the hearing on time.

If you're going to take on a Billion Dollar Company, you need to show up for the hearing on time and prepared. The City of Detroit was neither. And what makes it so bad was that the hearing was in their own building. Any information they needed was more than readily accessible to them.

You're not sticking up for them, you're excusing them for not being prepared. Which is status quo, business as usual in this city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GREENTROIT

The hint is that if you allow your owned and abandoned properties to rot, then the city will take them. I understand everyones attachment to MCS and I wish it could come back to life, but I don't see it happening in the next 20 years. Nobody has come up with an idea for the building let alone how to fund what would be an incredibly expensive rehab.

---

The county is already doing it in agreement with the city. While the blight laws allow the government to fix it, level it, or take it, its much better to take the property and resell it than it is to rehab or demolish it and later look for reimbursement. Under Duggan, the County used Detroit's Blight Law to file on 40 properties a week and as more and more houses were taken, some got the message. About 1/3 agreed to fix the properties, about 1/3 agreed to sell the property to someone that would fix it, and about 1/3 went to court. I have no idea how many get filed on now, but there's 10,000 abandoned properties out there and if even 80% of the promises are kept, some properties will keep coming back.

The challenge it always faced, including at the highest levels of the local government, was whether it violated the Fifth Amendment clause that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The lower courts have followed the logic that its a forfieture law, not an eminent domain law, so its to be tested against the Fourth Amendment due process clause. The case reversing Poletown specifically upheld Detroit's Blight Law, but there's two risks with that. One, it has no precedential value because the case didn't involve that question. Two, the Feds can simply disagree with how the Michigan Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution.

The issue never got to the appellate courts because if someone had the money to challenge it, it made more sense to sell it or fix it. Its likely Maroun would challenge it, putting all the rest of the good work at risk even if that risk is low.

The objection that attorney's for the owner raised was that their records show that they building known as 2231 Dalzelle was demolished already. The only building remaining on that parcel has a different address posted on the side of it. [[Although, there was no indication at the hearing as to how long that different address has been affixed to the property.)


With residential property, the Building Department does a follow up inspection and takes pictures about 3 or 4 days before the City Council hearing. For them to do that with every average Joe Blow and not Matty Moroun, illustrates my point of how ill prepared the City was.

Quote:

---

"We ought to be working together to figure out a way to develop, rather than destroy, an icon of the community," Seikaly said.

---

About fell off my chair laughing on that one! Oh the irony....

I am so tired of hearing people say that the building is beyond repair. I was in the Book-Caddilac before t was rehabed, and I have been in the MCS. The Book was much worse off. And who says that a renovation has to be a multi-million dollar restoration that would restore it to an ornamental state that would rival the station when it orginally opened. I would be all for a restoration that preserved the building and made it secure enough to serve a purpose. It does not have to be overly ornate; it might even be cool to preserve and secure it as is.

Click it:

http://savemcs.blogspot.com/

Quote:

---

With residential property, the Building Department does a follow up inspection and takes pictures about 3 or 4 days before the City Council hearing. For them to do that with every average Joe Blow and not Matty Moroun, illustrates my point of how ill prepared the City was.

---

That wouldn't have made a difference. As I pointed out above, the objection that Mr. Moroun's attorney raised related what the proper address of the building in question was. Photographs of the building would not resolve that question.

Quote:

---

If the Building Department had its act together, it would have been able to dispute the information presented by the DIBC. The Law Department wasn't able to provide any real assistance, as they didn't even bother to show up for the hearing on time.

---

First, I concur that it was unacceptable for the the two lawyers from the Law Department to not be in the room on time. I won't even attempt to defend them on that count.

Second, the information presented by DIBC was disputed. However, the City Council decided to postpone the matter regardless.

Any consideration of demolishing the tower portion of the station is a de facto demolition of the entire station. There is no point in saving any of it if that's part of the plan. One piece doesn't make sense without the other.

Knowing what government structures look like nowadays, it will be another cheap slapped together concrete box attached to a poorly renovated main station. And the public will no longer have any access to it.

Our government doesn't hire architects to build buildings anymore, only contractors without funding or vision.

Buildings like the art deco federal building/courthouse downtown will never be built again- although we could use another WPA to get people back to work.

If this is the MCS's future, then demolish it already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

Any consideration of demolishing the tower portion of the station is a de facto demolition of the entire station. There is no point in saving any of it if that's part of the plan. One piece doesn't make sense without the other.

---

Demolition of the tower was a proposal that the DIBC made to the U.S. General Services Administration, as part of having the remaining portion be offices for Homeland Security. A helipad would be built where the tower now stands.

The City Council, however, is considering a request by the Administration to demolish the entire building as well as a warehouse that is attached to it.

Frank, a request by this administration, or the last one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheValson

It does not have to be overly ornate; it might even be cool to preserve and secure it as is.

---

I was thinking the same thing. That's one of the few buildings that might look cooler abandoned then if it was restored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

That wouldn't have made a difference. As I pointed out above, the objection that Mr. Moroun's attorney raised related what the proper address of the building in question was. Photographs of the building would not resolve that question.


First, I concur that it was unacceptable for the the two lawyers from the Law Department to not be in the room on time. I won't even attempt to defend them on that count.

Second, the information presented by DIBC was disputed. However, the City Council decided to postpone the matter regardless.

---

Photographs of the building would not resolve that question.

The pictures aren't the point. My point is that if the Building Department does a follow up inspection just days before the city council hearing for hearings where the owner has little or no resources, then the same should be done in a situation where you know that the owner is a billionaire and is going to lawyer up big time.

Keep in mind, this wasn't the first hearing on this matter. The Building Department held a hearing in its offices around a month before the city council hearing. The same issues came up then and the City did not do any follow up work even though they knew what issues the DIBC would bring up at the City Council Hearing. That is what you call half-assed.