Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News
http://detnews.com/article/20090519/...chance-at-Cobo
Anyone think the Cobo deal now has a chance?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News
http://detnews.com/article/20090519/...chance-at-Cobo
Anyone think the Cobo deal now has a chance?
not if brooks stands firmQuote:
Originally Posted by LodgeDodger
I think Brooks was, at first, bluffing. Then, after all the stupidity by the Detroit Council, Brooks decided he'd really push the idea. IMHO, he'll come around.
From the article it looks like it's the same deal the council rejected, with the added stipulation that if the council rejects this deal again Oakland County can just redirect their money to their own ventures. This will be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitymachine
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitymachine
Take a look at who's sponsoring the Bills. Judson Gilbert, Tony Stamas, Jason Allen and Mark Jansen. All Republicans. If the City Council doesn't pass it, the legislation is calling for Oakland County to get a serious hook-up. I think they're banking on City Council not approving it. Even with KC back, that's still 5-4 against it unless one of the others that voted against cobo vote for it this time. L. Brooks is down with this one.
If nothing else, this interval has allowed us to see that the structure of that authority is not viable, IMO.
To allow any individual/entity the power to stand firm and thereby deadlock something so vital just does not make sense. The authority must have a majority rule structure or we will just have more of the same.
I believe this interval has also taught us that there is too much competition amongst cities in Michigan to support true [[and altruistic) regionalization of anything that is of an economic nature.
Regionalism here only means we don't have checkpoints between cities. Other than that we might as well be a loose confederation of city-states, each trying to gobble up more power and resources over its neighbors.
What's interesting to me is what the apparently slight change in the legislation represents. The old legislation essentially said: "X and such will happen unless the Detroit City Council rejects it." The new legislation says: "X and such will happen unless the Detroit City Council rejects it, in which case we will open the doors for Oakland County to do something."
If you are a Detroit City Councilperson, there is a vast gulf between the two...
I keep going back and forth on this, Locke.
This is obviously a play to hand Brooksie what he wants - and with the vitriol against the city of Detroit right now, the dems might just sign off on it. This is in short forcing city council's hand - they either take the deal or leave it. If they leave it, kiss support for Cobo goodbye. They might be forced to take it.
As to the "death of regionalism," you might be right, but if that is the case, why is anyone staying? [[oh wait, they're not, I'm having yet another party for someone moving to the west coast permanently). I mean really, this is such childish behavior by all our leaders. Everyone's standing behind their silly principles and both sides have forgotten mutual benefit. It's all about "I'm going to get mine."
The rest of the country knows and has noted our lack of co-operation. Hence the void of investment - and it's not just the recession, it's much worse here and has been for awhile.
We need to overcome this crap, or we all will continue to die. We need real leadership.
If this deal still contains a 5-member authority with each member having veto power, I would still say, "Leave it." even if it means kissing support for Cobo goodbye. I say this as a matter of practicality. How can you possibly make good progress on anything when one person can create a stalemate? This might be okay on an advisory committee, but I can't imagine how it will work on an authority that actually owns assets and controls funds. Is there another authority like this that is not majority rule, where there must be 100% consensus in order to get anything done? Oh yes, and the members with veto power are actually competitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalvision
I just don't see it being viable. Nor does it make good business sense to give someone veto power over something sitting in your backyard, which might affect you more than it affects them. This legislation is written such that, they could still vote to move the NAIAS outside of Detroit, as long as they maintain Cobo as a convention facility. If Detroit objects and vetos, then there can be a stalemate. But Detroit can do nothing to get Cobo back as long as some convention is being held there.
You don't write good legislation with the hope that people will cooperate. You write it with provisions for remedies if they don't.
Anyway, if Oakland County can take its money, does that mean Detroit and Wayne County can pool theirs? Would that be enough to make Cobo state of the art without a major expansion? There are still things to consider rather than just accepting that this is a "Checkmate."
I know teenagers, not yet out of high school, who see through all the pretense and have come to the conclusion that Michigan [[not Detroit, not the suburbs, but Michigan) is backwards and not a good place to raise a new generation.
The only parties in this debacle who are fighting regionalism [[at least when it comes to this issue) are on City Council. People in Oakland [[and for that matter Macomb) have recognized that losing the NAIAS would be a blow to the entire region. I'm not sure how you can accuse someone of trying to keep the auto show in the region as being against regionalism. As I understand it, if COBO isn't renovated the alternative is somewhere like Chicago, not Detroit.
Oakland County has stepped up [[through their elected representatives) and said that they want to keep it at COBO and that they're willing to use their tax dollars to fund it [[as they've been doing for almost 20 years). The only thing they've asked for in excange for this is an end to the pay to play system that has been pervasive at COBO.
Maybe Detroit should follow this up by having their State reps create a bill requesting that all monies sent to HCMA be re-directed to the city parks and rec department.
If we are going to go with a 'I quit and I'm taking my ball home' approach to regionalization the city should look to re-direct HCMA monies to Belle Isle.
The $ amounts will be vastly different but I would like to hear the reaction of the counties/cities that benefit most from HCMA regional dollars.
An end to pay to play is not the only thing they have asked for. Patterson has made it clear that he must have a 5-member authority with veto power because he is afraid of getting out-voted on issues. He has admitted it with his own mouth. That is not regionalism. That is part of what held this up in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by spartacus
You can end pay to play just by having a representative at the table who is watching things for you and bringing them to the public attention or the legislature's attention or even the prosecutor's attention. So, it can't be just that. That's too easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
You're correct. When Judge Torres had all of the various parties trying to work out a settlement, an agreement was worked out with all parties. The only thing left was for the Regional Authority to sign off. 4 of the 5 members of the Regional Authority were in agreement. The only person amongst everyone involved that did not want to agree to a deal was L. Brooks Patterson's selection. With 1 person having veto power, the deal was dead.
Only if a nut like MC or BRC will be placed on the board. The same nuts who laughed off the 20 million in the legislation because they said the value of the Cobo land was worth 1.6 billion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
Saying that this board won't be functional because of the problems of the recent past is like saying that a jump rope doesn't work because a mentally handicapped person can't make a go of it. It's surprising how well something can work when you have reasonable and intelligent people at the helm.
As I was careful to articulate, it has nothing to do with "who" is on the authority. There is a reason a decision-making body is typically made up of an odd-number of people with a "majority rules" voting structure. It prevents deadlocks. Again, name a similar authority with everyone having veto power. Not an authority that is just advising or developing plans that then must be approved by someone else. But an authority that owns and controls assets and funds. You won't find it in government. You won't find it in private industry. There must be a tie-breaker to avoid stalemates. It has nothing to do with whether or not you think the individuals are intelligent and reasonable. Intelligent and reasonable people often disagree, sometimes strongly, with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjk
BTW, are we asserting that Patterson is reasonable?
If we want true regionalism in Detroit [[and I use "Detroit" as a reference to the metropolitan region), we must have a regional government over the city and county governments. This is the only way to assure that personalities do not upset regional cooperation. As it is, a loose confederation is the best we can do. As long as that persists, people like Conyers and Patterson will have great power.
The "every stakeholder has a veto" system is a bad system, but it is the only system that has a chance of becoming law under the circumstances. We should take it if we can get it and recognize it as history in the making.
"Anyway, if Oakland County can take its money, does that mean Detroit and Wayne County can pool theirs? Would that be enough to make Cobo state of the art without a major expansion? There are still things to consider rather than just accepting that this is a "Checkmate."'
Not without the OK from the legislature. Fixing up Cobo is putting lipstick on a pig. It doesn't fix the cost disadvantages and corruption that have plagued Cobo. Visiting Novi isn't the urban experience that many conventioneers would prefer. But conference organizers may well prefer a state-of-the-art center without all of the hassles of Cobo over a fixed-up but mismanaged Cobo.
A bigger point I havent heard addressed is why the auto show needs expanding now? Auto companies are downsizing everything else. The argument for a larger auto show feels so 5 years ago.
On another note...the thought of the auto show in Novi seems so blehhh. As bad as Detroit is, at least it has character. I know some may not care about that, but the thought of an auto show in the middle of an area that looks like random suburbia from any part of the country is very unappealing. And I doubt outsiders will be blown away by whatever facilities they come up with.
"Fixing up Cobo is putting lipstick on a pig."
Let's not put Sarah Palin into this argument :p I couldn't resist.
The strange thing is, expanding and upgrading Cobo Hall won't do much at all for the city or the region. We won't suddenly become a tourist mecca because we managed to upgrade one facility in the midst of all our horrible dysfunction. The city will still bleed residents, we still won't have jobs, we still won't have transit; we will still have every problem we have today, save for one.
But trying and failing to expand and upgrade Cobo Hall gave us an enormous black eye we didn't need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
The idea of expanding the Rock Financial Center with public money doesn't raise questions? Is there precedence for that? I'm not being facetious, I really don't know.
Would the Michigan legislature allow tax money to be used for a privately owned convention center? Would Patterson have to create an authority for that center? Would Rock Financial agree and give him veto power on that authority? Would contracts have to be bid in accordance with public policies? Would the entire tri-county region still gain financially if the NAIAS moved to Novi?
I guess there are other possibilities, Pontiac Silverdome for instance?
WWJ reported that OC would direct the tobacco money to its building authority, making it a public project, not a private one.
http://www.wwj.com/Bill-Would-Give-C...o-Shot/4424793
That would give LBP total control over the deal.
You have raised a very important issue here. This should be illegal to fund a privately owned venue with public funds. The funds made in Detroit can be used in rebuilding Detroit or protecting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
What is the real reason for the rush to steal the auto show and Cobo?? Tearing the building down and building a shipping dock has been rumored.
With the death of the Big Three will an Auto Show be needed??????
When I hear this, I think of the Glenn Fry song, "The Heat is On."