George Jackson is the Development Man.

**kraig** · September-26-11, 08:04 AM

http://www.freep.com/article/2011092...xt|FRONTPAGE|s

**marcwigle** · September-26-11, 08:32 AM

I may be off-base here but is it not a problem that this guy, who lives in Southfield, is making so many decisions for a city that he doesn't live in?

"A Southfield resident, Jackson had planned to buy one of the riverfront condominiums in the Watermark project that Bing had proposed before the real estate crash scuttled those plans. Jackson says he would still like to move to the riverfront once residential projects get back on track there."

"That's the goal," he says of his vision for Detroit. "And I want to not just work in it but live in it as well."

I didn't think it was that difficult to find a place to live in Detroit...

**kraig** · September-26-11, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by marcwigle

I may be off-base here but is it not a problem that this guy, who lives in Southfield, is making so many decisions for a city that he doesn't live in?

"A Southfield resident, Jackson had planned to buy one of the riverfront condominiums in the Watermark project that Bing had proposed before the real estate crash scuttled those plans. Jackson says he would still like to move to the riverfront once residential projects get back on track there."

"That's the goal," he says of his vision for Detroit. "And I want to not just work in it but live in it as well."

I didn't think it was that difficult to find a place to live in Detroit...

There are more than a few people waiting to get their deposits back from the Watermark Project.

DetroitPole · September-26-11, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by marcwigle

I may be off-base here but is it not a problem that this guy, who lives in Southfield, is making so many decisions for a city that he doesn't live in?

"A Southfield resident, Jackson had planned to buy one of the riverfront condominiums in the Watermark project that Bing had proposed before the real estate crash scuttled those plans. Jackson says he would still like to move to the riverfront once residential projects get back on track there."

"That's the goal," he says of his vision for Detroit. "And I want to not just work in it but live in it as well."

I didn't think it was that difficult to find a place to live in Detroit...

Great. Someone who in practice does not value the amenities of urban living like history and walkability.

Now, let me pose you this: Do you think a suburban white person would be tolerated that position? I do not.

**Detroitnerd** · September-26-11, 09:10 AM

When grumbling about George reaches a certain level, his image must be burnished a bit. John Gallagher to the rescue! Gallagher is an excellent historian, architecture critic who has worked almost a lifetime in Detroit newspapering.

How do you get to work a lifetime in Detroit newspapering? Critique buildings, but don't take pokes at the power structure too much.

I like it. Evidently, Georgie felt he needed a lifeline this week.

**preserve** · September-26-11, 10:01 AM

I'm glad he doesn't live in Detroit. Does JoAnn Watson know that?

**Novine** · September-26-11, 11:45 AM

Wattrick's broadside must have scored some hits.

**Detroitnerd** · September-26-11, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

Wattrick's broadside must have scored some hits.

That, and he's really all alone on this Tiger Stadium thing. He may have the ear of the Detroit News editorial board and John Gallagher, but I don't see anybody signing their name in agreement with him on this.

**1953** · September-26-11, 03:52 PM

Down with Shoeless George Jackson!

**DetroitHabitater** · September-26-11, 04:29 PM

I think they are confusing 'development' with 'knocking buildings down'

**Detroitnerd** · September-26-11, 04:38 PM

That was the joke. DEGC stands for Demolishing Everything George Chooses.

**animatedmartian** · September-26-11, 05:01 PM

Jackson known for down-to-earth attitude

Did anyone else think this was a contradiction?

DetroitPole · September-26-11, 09:02 PM

The title of the opposing side's part of this piece [[of shit) begins with "vitriol"? Then we jump back to Jackson with the title "a place for all"?? Seriously?
So Gallagher and Jackson get to pal around with wine and cheese together and gloat about how great they are for Detroit - that doesn't mean Gallagher should be exempted as a journalist from writing a balanced, even-handed article.
I guess look at the state of print media in this town.

**Joseph C. Krause** · September-27-11, 05:38 AM

Detroitnerd, do I know you in meatspace?

**Gorath** · September-27-11, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Did anyone else think this was a contradiction?

I think it was a typo.

Jackson known for down-to-earth altitude

Fixed it!

**401don** · September-27-11, 08:02 AM

I actually thought "down-to-earth" was a Freudian slip.

**swingline** · September-27-11, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

When grumbling about George reaches a certain level, his image must be burnished a bit. John Gallagher to the rescue! Gallagher is an excellent historian, architecture critic who has worked almost a lifetime in Detroit newspapering.

How do you get to work a lifetime in Detroit newspapering? Critique buildings, but don't take pokes at the power structure too much.

I like it. Evidently, Georgie felt he needed a lifeline this week.

Not a real good editorial decision to have Mr. Gallagher write this profile piece. It's ok for a newspaper to publish positive and uncritical profiles. Every story doesn't have to have drama and conflict. But Mr. Gallagher has functioned for some time at the Freep as both a reporter and a columnist/opinionist regarding real estate development matters. He needs extensive access from Mr. Jackson and many others at the DEGC to successfully perform his writing duties. He shouldn't be writing a feel-good feature about one of his most important sources.

**Detroitnerd** · September-27-11, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by swingline

Not a real good editorial decision to have Mr. Gallagher write this profile piece. It's ok for a newspaper to publish positive and uncritical profiles. Every story doesn't have to have drama and conflict. But Mr. Gallagher has functioned for some time at the Freep as both a reporter and a columnist/opinionist regarding real estate development matters. He needs extensive access from Mr. Jackson and many others at the DEGC to successfully perform his writing duties. He shouldn't be writing a feel-good feature about one of his most important sources.

Good point, Swing. Methinks that Jackson was "charging" Gallagher for access with this thing. Best practices would mean the editorial board shouldn't have let it go forward. That's how insightful and talented writers like Gallagher get their reputations damaged.

That said, Gallagher has often walked a fine line. He's at his best when reporting on somebody else who's letting it rip. My favorite was when Boston architect Susie Kim came to town in the late 1980s and basically criticized the metro area's unimaginative architecture. He quoted her as saying, "I don't know if it deserves the word architecture. No one's looking at urban design. The whole thing's led by marketing. I think if architects could be put into jail for what they do, I think people would be more cautious." Ho, boy, that was a fun read!

**Huggybear** · September-28-11, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

That, and he's really all alone on this Tiger Stadium thing. He may have the ear of the Detroit News editorial board and John Gallagher, but I don't see anybody signing their name in agreement with him on this.

If no one with sufficient money or influence is siding with OTSC to present a workable, funded plan that is compatible with the city's stated desire to redevelop the site as something else [[and that may or may not involve the ballfield), then it doesn't matter who - if anyone - sides with Jackson.

The die was cast [[or the pitch was thrown) here when a plan was established to clear the site completely. That was undertaken with the approval of the DDA or EDC board - not George Jackson acting alone [[since structurally, he couldn't).

Despite this, OTSC was given an exclusive right and a couple of years to come up with a funded, workable idea. When it didn't do this [[in fact, barely even reaching fundraising goals in the hundreds of thousands of dollars), the demolition commenced. Strike one.

Then OTSC sued, and a judge - looking at OTSC's progress in getting funding - determined it was insufficient, observed that it was unlikely to succeed in the future, and let the demolition continue. Strike two.

And yet, despite having close to zero chance of ever fulfilling its stated purpose [[having alienated the city by, among other things, suing it), OTSC and friends have fought a PR war in an attempt to backdoor themselves into controlling the site [[or establishing some formal legal right to be there and therefore inhibit future destruction of the field - only now without providing any development benefit). The Chevy deal was the latest vehicle for that - and it, too, failed. Out.

It baffles this observer why no one in the OTSC camp seems to understand that [[1) the only salvation for the field will be a rich developer who wants to keep it and that [[2) if some other attractive deal comes along in the meantime, then hello off-street parking. Turning a blind eye to the site's redevelopment history is, one supposes, a technique. I think a huge inhibitor to saving the field is that people haven't adapted to [[or accepted) the situation: get off your arses, get off DetroitYes, and find some rich people to fund a field-friendly development - or spend your next few years watching for backhoes.

The "everyone is on our side and no one is on the other side" argument is a bit trite - and every indication in the Tiger Stadium site battle is that the people trying to save the field are in a distinct, disempowered minority. You can creatively cast this effort as rooted in "the community," but Corktown is a microscopic slice of Detroit population-wise, and even its attitudes toward that site are hardly unanimous. Most people have moved on.

It also bears note that as much as people would punch Gallagher, Wattrick used to be an OTSC employee - and so if you are drawing intuitive conclusions that Gallagher has an interest, you should carefully consider Wattrick's attitude toward things as well.

**stasu1213** · September-28-11, 05:42 AM

Why wasn't this project given to a Transit Authority? Bing doesn't have a clue and just appoint anyone to any position. That is why he is having so much trouble in his administration

**swingline** · September-28-11, 11:06 AM

A couple of responses to some of Huggy's points:

Originally Posted by Huggybear

Then OTSC sued, and a judge - looking at OTSC's progress in getting funding - determined it was insufficient, observed that it was unlikely to succeed in the future, and let the demolition continue. Strike two.

You got your facts wrong. The judge never evaluated OTSC's funding progress. Instead, he effectively punted the whole dispute by rejecting [[without explanation) OTSC's request for an injunction to halt the demolition while it pursued its legal claims. The OTSC decided to abandon its lawsuit once it could not stop the irreversible damage to the structure.

Originally Posted by Huggybear

It also bears note that as much as people would punch Gallagher, Wattrick used to be an OTSC employee - and so if you are drawing intuitive conclusions that Gallagher has an interest, you should carefully consider Wattrick's attitude toward things as well.

In his column blasting the DEGC's rejection of the Chevy offer, Mr. Wattrick disclosed his prior role as a staffer at the OTSC.

**Novine** · September-28-11, 11:08 AM

"It also bears note that as much as people would punch Gallagher, Wattrick used to be an OTSC employee - and so if you are drawing intuitive conclusions that Gallagher has an interest, you should carefully consider Wattrick's attitude toward things as well."

Which Wattrick stated up front in his article. He wasn't pretending to be a disinterested observer in the way that Gallagher does.

**Novine** · September-28-11, 11:20 AM

Wattrick responds to Jackson's comments:

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...d_downrig.html

**Huggybear** · September-28-11, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

Which Wattrick stated up front in his article. He wasn't pretending to be a disinterested observer in the way that Gallagher does.

Disclosing a bias doesn't make you any less biased... and the point of bringing that up on this thread is that despite the disclaimers in the article [[how I knew about it), that's not being discussed here, where things seem to have degenerated into a junior-high-ish "daaaaaang... beasted" contest.

And having looked at Wattrick's response... who's doing the editing over at MLive? The best way to remedy one flopped, hyper-obscure pop culture reference is with sixteen or seventeen more? When I think Hyman Roth, Cuba doesn't even enter the picture. I think of:

- Tray tables and grilled-cheese sandwiches
- Always making a profit for your partners
- Being an investor living on a pension

The resort to "deep tracks" of a movie like Godfather II, the fragmented writing, and the incoherent logic of a piece like that tend to explain why that faction isn't getting much of a foothold.

**Huggybear** · September-28-11, 09:28 PM

Swingline, I won't pretend to be an expert on these things, but I do know that winning a preliminary injunction requires the judge to conclude that you have a better than 50% chance of success on your claims. So that either had to be based on meeting obligations under the agreement with the city [[including funding) or something similar. The fact that none of this got into a one-liner court order doesn't mean that it wasn't argued before the court [[and I would hope for OTSC's sake that its lawyers pulled out all the stops). And there seem to be a lot of out-of-state accounts discussing the judge's reactions - which may only have been verbal during a hearing.