Detroit delays decision on Michigan Central Depot

[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.

[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"

[kraig]

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.

[casscorridor]

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.

[Fnemecek]

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.

[kraig]

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.