I see why Dave Bing works for only 1 dollar.

[1KielsonDrive]

You debate something with measurable truth or fact it it. Unless you have something otherwise, at this point it's baseless speculation which you can theorize about. That's not debate; it's idle speculation. Just want to be clear about the difference between the two. You can't just make a speculative rumor or personal hunch and "debate" it. There is nothing to debate; hell, it's probably not even conjecture.

PS: I don't let anyone 'define' anything for me. I allow them to contribute to my definitions.

[kraig]

Here's a direct quote from Dave Bing, that was directed at Ken Cockrel over the $42,000 he owed for campaign fines, during the first debate [[I think) between himself, Cockrel and Hendrix.

"You know you owe, pay."

But hey, if you can't be a hypocrite in Detroit. Where can you be a hypocrite?

This reminds me of Joe Pesci's foolproof gambling system in Casino. If he won he collected, if he lost, he told you to go f_ck yourself.

But we can all take solace in the fact that a shrewd billionaire businessman like Roger Penske needed Derrick Coleman involved in the deal because of Coleman's impeccable business credentials and not because he was cool with Bing and Kwame.

[MichMatters]

PS: I don't let anyone 'define' anything for me. I allow them to contribute to my definitions.

You're a legend in your own mind. Nowhere in my post to you on this issue did I personally attack you. Yet, your classy nature led you to be lewd towards me. How's life going for you?

[1KielsonDrive]

You're a legend in your own mind. Nowhere in my post to you on this issue did I personally attack you. Yet, your classy nature led you to be lewd towards me. How's life going for you?

Wonderful.

[1KielsonDrive]

You're a legend in your own mind. Nowhere in my post to you on this issue did I personally attack you. Yet, your classy nature led you to be lewd towards me. How's life going for you?

You stole my line.

[1KielsonDrive]

You're a legend in your own mind. Nowhere in my post to you on this issue did I personally attack you. Yet, your classy nature led you to be lewd towards me. How's life going for you?

That's my ASSY nature, not classy. Also, why would I be lewd to you? Rude maybe. But lewd? If was trolling, it wouldn't be on DetroitYes.

[PQZ]

PQZ, I respect your knowledge an insight on a lot of things, But, I have to humbly disagree with your position that Kwame Kilpatrick and his administration had no involvement in the decision to go ahead with this project. If recent history has shown us nothing else, it has shown us that Kwame attempted to have his fingers in every pie that he could. After all, Roger Penske, who was also involved in this project, didn't pony up $50,000 for no reason whatsoever.

Kraig:

As the principle author of the Request for Qualifications and Proposals and the lead staffer who corrdianted the evaluation of the reposonse, I can personally and professionally assure you that there was no influence on the process from the Mayor or his staff. A team of eight evaluators including representatives from Planning and Development Department each reviewed and scored the responses independently. The scores were aggregated and responses ranked by total score. The scores were based mostly on objective criteria that were yes / no scores. Do they have X - say something like proof they have completed projects of similar size to that proposed? Yes, they get five points. No, they get zero.

Some scores were subjective. Subjective crtiteria included things like giving points for adherance to design principles for the district and comprised less than 35% of the score available.

If there were undue influence, KKs favorite Peebles Development would have been a winning team, not Dwight Belyues team. Bettis / Betters would have gotten more than the one parcel they did. But because the criteria were objective, the Peebles proposal was rejected for its non-compliance to design guidelines. Bettis / Betters would not have been bumped by Bing and a large donor would not have had their entire proposal rejected. Three parcels that had been proposed on by a KK campaign donor were also pulled from consideration as the sole proposal was deficient. It was felt that better proposals could be received for those three parcels at a later date if the other, hiogher quality projects got off the ground and proved the market.

Sorry, but on this one you are barking up the wrong tree.

[1KielsonDrive]

Kraig:

As the principle author of the Request for Qualifications and Proposals and the lead staffer who corrdianted the evaluation of the reposonse, I can personally and professionally assure you that there was no influence on the process from the Mayor or his staff. A team of eight evaluators including representatives from Planning and Development Department each reviewed and scored the responses independently. The scores were aggregated and responses ranked by total score. The scores were based mostly on objective criteria that were yes / no scores. Do they have X - say something like proof they have completed projects of similar size to that proposed? Yes, they get five points. No, they get zero.

Some scores were subjective. Subjective crtiteria included things like giving points for adherance to design principles for the district and comprised less than 35% of the score available.

If there were undue influence, KKs favorite Peebles Development would have been a winning team, not Dwight Belyues team. Bettis / Betters would have gotten more than the one parcel they did. But because the criteria were objective, the Peebles proposal was rejected for its non-compliance to design guidelines. Bettis / Betters would not have been bumped by Bing and a large donor would not have had their entire proposal rejected. Three parcels that had been proposed on by a KK campaign donor were also pulled from consideration as the sole proposal was deficient. It was felt that better proposals could be received for those three parcels at a later date if the other, hiogher quality projects got off the ground and proved the market.

Sorry, but on this one you are barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks for your post, PQZ. I appreciate your attempt to bring information to this discussion. Seeing as how I don't know who you are, and you don't know me, what are the guarantees that any information we've presented is correct and factual? Even if you are who you say you are, I might be likely to believe that the process was unduly influenced. I'm not saying you are untruthful, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Is anything posted here at DY, or anywhere on the internet, truly factual? Let the discussion continue. Thanks again to Kraig for bringing this matter to our attention. Eventually we may find out if there is any merit to the suspicions.

[kraig]

Kraig:

As the principle author of the Request for Qualifications and Proposals and the lead staffer who corrdianted the evaluation of the reposonse, I can personally and professionally assure you that there was no influence on the process from the Mayor or his staff. A team of eight evaluators including representatives from Planning and Development Department each reviewed and scored the responses independently. The scores were aggregated and responses ranked by total score. The scores were based mostly on objective criteria that were yes / no scores. Do they have X - say something like proof they have completed projects of similar size to that proposed? Yes, they get five points. No, they get zero.

Some scores were subjective. Subjective crtiteria included things like giving points for adherance to design principles for the district and comprised less than 35% of the score available.

If there were undue influence, KKs favorite Peebles Development would have been a winning team, not Dwight Belyues team. Bettis / Betters would have gotten more than the one parcel they did. But because the criteria were objective, the Peebles proposal was rejected for its non-compliance to design guidelines. Bettis / Betters would not have been bumped by Bing and a large donor would not have had their entire proposal rejected. Three parcels that had been proposed on by a KK campaign donor were also pulled from consideration as the sole proposal was deficient. It was felt that better proposals could be received for those three parcels at a later date if the other, hiogher quality projects got off the ground and proved the market.

Sorry, but on this one you are barking up the wrong tree.

I'm somewhat familiar with the City's selection/evaluation system. And as you've stated, some scores were subjective. As you've also stated, the Planning & Development Department was also involved in the process which would be cause for concern if Henry Hagood was involved in any way shape or form.

Often times when the City of Detroit departments use evaluators, not every evaluator reviews every proposal, which in and of itself, makes the evaluations subjective. I believe that everything you did was on the up and up. But, did every single evaluator score every single proposal? If not, that's a serious problem. I do believe that Kwame got his way with this proposal. Remember, Kwame was not above having his people strategically lose bids to give the appearance of fairness.

Looking back on it, I have to ask you. Have any of the developers done anything with their projects? Or have they simply received prime riverfront land and interest free loans that don't have to be paid back? Hmmmnnn, loans that don't have to be paid back, I guess that's were Penske and Karmanos got the idea.

[PQZ]

I'm somewhat familiar with the City's selection/evaluation system. And as you've stated, some scores were subjective. As you've also stated, the Planning & Development Department was also involved in the process which would be cause for concern if Henry Hagood was involved in any way shape or form.

Often times when the City of Detroit departments use evaluators, not every evaluator reviews every proposal, which in and of itself, makes the evaluations subjective. I believe that everything you did was on the up and up. But, did every single evaluator score every single proposal? If not, that's a serious problem. I do believe that Kwame got his way with this proposal. Remember, Kwame was not above having his people strategically lose bids to give the appearance of fairness.

Looking back on it, I have to ask you. Have any of the developers done anything with their projects? Or have they simply received prime riverfront land and interest free loans that don't have to be paid back? Hmmmnnn, loans that don't have to be paid back, I guess that's were Penske and Karmanos got the idea.

Each of the evaluators returned completed matrices. Seeing as each proposal was 75 - 100 pages of data and drawingand took 3 -4 hours to score, having the entirety of the EDC and the 300+ staff members of P&DD evaluate the proposals to eliminate any perceived bias is simply unworkable. As it is, the evaluation preparations ate about 3.5 days worth of work time for each of eight people. Another 2 -3 dyas was eaten with meetings in which the results were compiled and significanct varaitions isn scrores were reconciled. [[For example, a construction manager from the EDC may have had a series of bad experiences with a proposed contractor that the urban design reviewer from P&DD may not have been aware of.) Thats just to get to the point of who to negotiate with. The negotiations and design refinemanet at exponentially more man hours.

I know neither Belyue or Bettis / Betters closed on the sale of their parcels, despite significant monies expended on design, engineering and site due diligence work. The total funds investment by the two parties is probably north of $10 million by now. Some of that is architects doing the work on an if - come basis, legal fees, testing fees etc. The costs to a developer to put toegther a proposal was in the $750,000 to $1.5 million range. Thats a lot of money to "throw" or "fake" a proposal to help KK cover his tracks. No developer does that and stays solvent for any length of time.

I have not been involved in the transactions for about 2.5 years, but it is my belief that Bing did not close on the property as well. It is my understanding from newspaper accounts and reading between the lines that the EDC loans were bridge loans to keep the project alive [[i.e. sales trailer open, engineers completing drawings) while the effort was made to pre-sell enough units to close on financing. Typically, the EDC and the City do not actually transfer ownership of a parcel until the bank or lending source is ready to make the loan. The three parties literally get together in a room with mutliple copies of the agreements that they begin signing simultaneously. That was as the land is being transferred, the bank is initiating the loan. This oprevents people from taking title and then doing nothing. It was a harsh lesson learned fromt heColeman Young Administration which often gave away land and buildings with no obligation to develop. See National Theatre.

[kraig]

Each of the evaluators returned completed matrices. Seeing as each proposal was 75 - 100 pages of data and drawingand took 3 -4 hours to score, having the entirety of the EDC and the 300+ staff members of P&DD evaluate the proposals to eliminate any perceived bias is simply unworkable. As it is, the evaluation preparations ate about 3.5 days worth of work time for each of eight people. Another 2 -3 dyas was eaten with meetings in which the results were compiled and significanct varaitions isn scrores were reconciled. [[For example, a construction manager from the EDC may have had a series of bad experiences with a proposed contractor that the urban design reviewer from P&DD may not have been aware of.) Thats just to get to the point of who to negotiate with. The negotiations and design refinemanet at exponentially more man hours.

I know neither Belyue or Bettis / Betters closed on the sale of their parcels, despite significant monies expended on design, engineering and site due diligence work. The total funds investment by the two parties is probably north of $10 million by now. Some of that is architects doing the work on an if - come basis, legal fees, testing fees etc. The costs to a developer to put toegther a proposal was in the $750,000 to $1.5 million range. Thats a lot of money to "throw" or "fake" a proposal to help KK cover his tracks. No developer does that and stays solvent for any length of time.

I have not been involved in the transactions for about 2.5 years, but it is my belief that Bing did not close on the property as well. It is my understanding from newspaper accounts and reading between the lines that the EDC loans were bridge loans to keep the project alive [[i.e. sales trailer open, engineers completing drawings) while the effort was made to pre-sell enough units to close on financing. Typically, the EDC and the City do not actually transfer ownership of a parcel until the bank or lending source is ready to make the loan. The three parties literally get together in a room with mutliple copies of the agreements that they begin signing simultaneously. That was as the land is being transferred, the bank is initiating the loan. This oprevents people from taking title and then doing nothing. It was a harsh lesson learned fromt heColeman Young Administration which often gave away land and buildings with no obligation to develop. See National Theatre.

Thanks for the insight. For the record, when I said every evaluator, I was only referring to the team that you had mentioned. Every employee evaluating every proposal would be to unmanageable.