Post Number: 5809
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 4:59 pm: || |
http://freep.com/article/20090 330/NEWS01/90330033/Judge+won+ t+rule+on+Cobo++tells+city+lea ders+to+talk+on
I was really hoping for a ruling upholding Cockrel's veto.
Post Number: 716
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 5:05 pm: || |
He imposed a gag order on the parties and ordered them to negotiate. Ordinarily, I would consider this a copout. However, given the sniping from LBP and ridiculous behavior of some of the City Council members, this might be an opportunity to get the job done, without the posturing.
My hope is for a regional solution.
Post Number: 163
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 5:06 pm: || |
Another spineless chicken in a region riddled with elected officials who are wafflers, blowhards and intellectual light-weights. What sort of negotiation can be reached without CC rescinding their worthless vote? Is the Mayor planning on re-thinking his veto?
Post Number: 5810
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 5:07 pm: || |
I wonder if he can just impose a general gag order on Conyers. Not just for this but life in general.
Post Number: 940
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 5:38 pm: || |
One wonders what there is to negotiate. The dispute between the mayor and city council seems to be purely legal. Either the mayor has a veto power in this matter, or he doesn't. How do you negotiate that? There must be some other dimension or issue with the city council lawsuit that hasn't been reported
Post Number: 967
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 5:39 pm: || |
Conyers & Clowns want to retain ownership so they can tell their constituents they won. Won what? The right to Cobo when it's no longer of value and you're on the hook for tearing it down? See Tiger Stadium or Joe Louis. Ilitch is smart enough to know you don't want ownership. You want to hand back the keys as soon as it becomes a liability instead of an asset. As long as the city council owns the land, they should be insisting the authority take ownership. But then again, they don't understand basic economics.
Post Number: 1951
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 8:19 pm: || |
There isn't any compromise possible, is there? What can the judge have in mind? This, to me, is binary: either the deal goes down or it does not. Any "middle of the road" compromise would have to be revisited by the state legislature, and I very much doubt Lansing has any stomach for that.
Very cryptic, this.
401don, the City Council has had for a long time this weird notion that owning bad things is somehow a desirable position. It's the old lady with the rotting corpse of a dead cat on her kitchen floor; you tell her to get rid of it because it stinks and is creepy, and she says "but it's my dead cat".
Post Number: 235
|Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 8:41 pm: || |
^"Conyers & Clowns want to retain ownership so they can tell their constituents they won. Won what?"
It's all show for the election, with all the bad press towards Council these 5 really really needed to light a fire to appear productive. It doesn't really matter if its right or wrong, MonCon could personally not be happier with the current deal, but another opportunity to stand up and grab the spotlight might not become available before election day. When the polls open, will it be easier to remember the term “Synagro” or “Cobo”?????
Post Number: 138
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 1:39 am: || |
I'd imagine they're negotiating about the deal itself. Tack on another concession to the city, let them keep some of the parking garages or something like that, get approval from counties and state, and let the authority go on its merry way. Though that's gotta be too efficient to be possible.
Sad thing is, if this does happen city council will look like the winners. At least within city boundaries, which is really all that matters.
Post Number: 4343
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 2:36 am: || |
If ownership was never a big deal to begin with, why didn't they just write it into the original resolution creating the authority? It'd have saved a lot of headaches down the road, though, admittedly not all of them.
Post Number: 1285
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 6:28 am: || |
"Conyers & Clowns want to retain ownership so they can tell their constituents they won. Won what?"
They win big by getting the "outsiders" to flinch.
Post Number: 4603
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 8:23 am: || |
Ficano sez, "We need to resolve this in an expedient way. The only resolution amenable to both sides is a lease-back agreement where the city retains ownership and leases Cobo back to the authority. This is similar to how the Detroit Zoo and the DIA currently operate. I don’t believe either side could agree on any other changes.”
Now that's a alternative, a regionalization lease. Come back to the barganing table, LBP. And leave your race cards at the door.
Post Number: 25
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 8:42 am: || |
How about this one. Conyers on Inside Detroit talking about Cobo in an almost incoherent rant and being egged on by Sam and Mildred breaks off subject and says that Wayne County never does anything for Detroit, rather goes out and fixes roads in Livonia and places like that. This woman is awesome!
Post Number: 146
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 11:58 am: || |
Imagine you were the mayor of a city, and you have a facility in your city that generates hundreds of millions in economic benefit, millions in contracts and hundreds of jobs. Your city has the highest unemployment rate in the state. The parking garage of that facility generates about $3 million per year, which you currently use to pay off the bonds you owe on the garage. You owe more than $20 million on the bonds.
Are you all actually telling me that you would not a) fight as hard as you could for a fair share of the jobs and contracts for the people in your city and b) think that it is utterly ridiculous for someone to offer you $20 million for the facility and the garage (mind you, you will have to add some money to that $20 million to pay off the garage that you will then hand over)?
I'm having a hard time believing that any of you actually think that this would be a good deal for your city. But, I could be wrong.
Post Number: 238
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 12:12 pm: || |
No sane person would hand over a profitable public resource without a fight to the death. But this is not the case; Cobo is broken and is a money pit for the city which has less money to fix it. Almost $300 million is being offered to repair and upgrade it and free it from being a negative asset on the city's balance sheet. The city profits much more from taxes collected from hotels/entertainment venues and is threatening sucide with this. The idea that this is not good for the city defies the laws of economics and swoops up support from mathematically challenged individuals.
Post Number: 26
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 12:51 pm: || |
Nice post Locke09. But I must say Russix countered well. I look forward to your response.
As far as my previous post, I made no mention of the deal being good or bad. I am just trying to figure out what constitutes a place "being like Livonia".
Another thing from the interview that puzzled me. Michael Grundy addressed her as Monica, he was quickly and sternly corrected as to her title. When Sam called her Monica, the conversation continued without a hitch.
Post Number: 1338
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 12:52 pm: || |
"Imagine you were the mayor of a city..."
Why do we have to imagine? Ken Cockrel is the Mayor of Detroit. He supports the proposal.
Post Number: 147
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 1:29 pm: || |
I'm not asking for Ken Cockrel's position, I already know it. I'm asking people to imagine they were in a position to negotiate a deal for their own imaginary City in a similar position to Detroit. If in their imaginary city, they would still say it's a good deal, well then okay, that's their response.
Russix, major public convention centers do not turn a profit per se. They are funded because they generate revenue for their region. I haven't heard anyone say any major public convention center anywhere is self-supporting.
So, Cobo will not turn a profit under the authority either. The upgrade will be paid from hotel/liquor tax and there is the intention to use cigarette tax revenue (I believe that is still the case) for operating expenses that the City currently pays.
My argument is not against having an authority, it is against the perception that it is stupid to fight for your best interests, even when people say it is too late and it is against certain aspects of the deal. I kind of thought that was the "American Way".
Post Number: 240
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 2:02 pm: || |
I think the fantasy complicates the fiscal reality into some pseudo-theoretical ethics. The Regional Authority will move toward making Cobo capable of covering its own operating costs. Being able to encourage competition and not play favorites is a hard fact of efficiency and common business sense. The city a) doesn’t have the money to fix it, b) needs to free itself from the current burden it is, c) could be spending the money on services that benefit it’s resident than visitors/tourists.
Post Number: 149
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 2:52 pm: || |
None of the parties on either side of this argument is saying that Cobo will be capable of covering its own operating costs from revenue.
Please go to the State of Michigan's website and read House Bills 5690, 5691 and 5692. You will find language in 5690 that says that the local government that transfers the facility is still on the hook for any difference between operating costs and revenue. Why???
The proposed funding source for the authority is not theoretical and resolves points a - c. Again, I don't argue against an authority with the same funding source, just against the present structure of the authority itself.
Post Number: 151
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 4:15 pm: || |
Amendment to my previous post:
The legislature's summary of the bills does not appear to include amendments. Senate Bill 1630 was amended to only have the City continue to be responsible for the city services it has to provide to Cobo. At least as far as I can tell.
Post Number: 1339
|Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 5:23 pm: || |
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/ documents/2007-2008/publicact/ htm/2008-PA-0554.htm