Michigan Central Restored and Opening
RESTORED MICHIGAN CENTRAL DEPOT OPENS »



Results 1 to 22 of 22

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default

    Why should government give money to Dan Gilbert's wildly successful business? I have no idea. Government should be in the role of ensuring a level playing field for people, not as a ladder for a property owner who already controls the downtown market.

    He's invested in Detroit to make money in Detroit. Make no mistake about it. It's a fair trade, as that's what business is and it's good for the city. Dan has done this in a responsible manner IMO. That doesn't mean we should be buying brand new buildings for him.

    Public funding for building stadiums has largely been a negative for the public. The returns haven't been there. Good reason to be skeptical of making SE MI "more competitive." That's the second part here, is this even a catalyst project?

    Anyone have the UofM economic study referenced in the Det News. I couldn't find it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeLemur View Post
    Why should government give money to Dan Gilbert's wildly successful business? I have no idea.
    Because this building wouldn't have a chance in hell of being built without lavish taxpayer subsidies, and if anything goes south, the taxpayer takes the hit.

    Both parties are complicit and all civilizations, since the beginning of time, has liked shiny monuments, so we're probably stuck in an endless cycle of "revitalization" that requires bigger and bigger subsidies.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bham1982 View Post
    Because this building wouldn't have a chance in hell of being built without lavish taxpayer subsidies, and if anything goes south, the taxpayer takes the hit.
    Exactly.

    It is why there should be provisions where, let's say, a public-subsidized property is developed, then five years later is sold for five times its cost. In such a case the public should be able to to recover, let's say, 150% of the subsidy it provided. I know that's simplistic but the point is that the public should share northside in all deals.

    I am for the Gilbert deal because he actually building something new, or reviving something long-empty with no future, and adding significantly to the long term revenue base.

    On the other hand stadium subsidies in Detroit were payment for moving an existing business from one place to another. Little new was added to the long term revenue base or even to employment. The move also gave up the naming-rights, likely worth around a quarter of the subsidies, to the Ilitch's. IIRC that was $66 million from Comerica. The Little Caesars' roof has to have a marketable value of double or triple that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.