  Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 345 Registered: 08-2004 |
Easy to guess which of those words an Ambassador Bridge exec slaps on the state rep. from SW Detroit: quote:Quote is from blog post today by Crain's Detroit Business reporter Bill Shea, who reports that the Democratic legislator "is organizing a group of legislators to tour the Ambassador Bridge construction site after a recent invitation by the Detroit International Bridge Co." He adds context: quote:No date yet for the tour. Stay tuned. | ||
Otter Member Username: Otter Post Number: 664 Registered: 12-2007 |
If I were a community organizor or advocate, I'd be happy to be called an 'agitator'! O. | ||
Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 1114 Registered: 11-2005 |
I for one think she has done a great job so far in her first couple months I know many members of her district that feel this way. If it there is going to be another bridge at least let the residents of south west have say in its design. Mattys bridge is as private as private can be.. | ||
Hubbardfarmer Member Username: Hubbardfarmer Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2008 |
That the DIBC is illegally building its second span without any permits, permissions or approvals is not an accusation, it is fact. You only need to drive Fort street under the current span to see that with your own eyes. I'm amazed at the brazen arrogance of the DIBC and can't figure out how they can get away with it without paying people off. Urbanoutdoors is right: the people in Tlaib's district want a say in what happens. I'm glad Rashida is standing up for us. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4234 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Can't she be both? And, if I remember correctly, hasn't Bill Shea been posting here and offering a rather unprofessional critique of Rashida Tlaib? I guess it's good to know where he stands, but if he expects any of his articles about the DIBC to be taken seriously, any longer, he's got another thing coming. Unforunately for him, he played his hand far too quick and on a rather widely read forum, at that. He's more than announced where he stands. Perhaps, he should change over to writing columns, instead.  | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1743 Registered: 05-2005 |
bill shea: agitator for the DIBC | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 346 Registered: 08-2004 |
quote:Actually, Lmich, Bill's blog posts are written as personal commentaries. The latest on Rashida Tlaib, for instance, says: quote:I get your point, of course, about also writing news coverage after staking out strong positions on the same topics. It's a tricky tightrope -- and perhaps an unwise one to try to tiptoe across, as you and others suggest -- but Bill rightly suggests that the fairness and balance of his reporting can speak for itself. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1755 Registered: 11-2005 |
In other words, Manuel "Matty" Moroun is a one-man Detroit axis of evil to Tlaib. Moron (sic) is a one-man Detroit axis of evil for A LOT of people, from those who live by MCS to his own family, members of which he has sued. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2009 |
LMAO ... if you question the DRIC folks, you must be a Grubb Street hack in the pay of Matty Moroun. I'm still waiting for that payoff cash!!! I sure could use it, LOL. In the meantime, I looked into Rashida's specific worries about the bridge company's request for changes that could jeopardize federal funding on the Gateway project. It'll be on CrainsDetroit.com tomorrow night (after 9 p.m., I think) and in Monday's print edition. She's right. Interesting stuff. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 38 Registered: 01-2009 |
That the DIBC is illegally building its second span without any permits, permissions or approvals is not an accusation, it is fact. No, it's not a fact, and the Detroit planning commission just reminded the city council of that. The Michigan Supreme Court decision last year outlined the facts: The bridge company is considered a federal agency for the limited purpose of border traffic, and it is exempt from any state or local permitting ... but only for things that have to do with traffic (ramps, supports, plaza, etc). Stuff like duty-free and things not directly related to traffic flow requires a permit. The city says the pump station is permitted, others are pending, and some things are not permitted. | ||
Penelopetheduck Member Username: Penelopetheduck Post Number: 39 Registered: 09-2006 |
Call me old fashioned but I'm not sure what's even remotely scandalous about an elected representative acting to represent the opinions/interests/concerns of those who elected her. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 347 Registered: 08-2004 |
quote:Bill's article on Page 3, accessible to Crain's subscribers, says: quote:And here's a grin (or groan) for the day -- Dan Stamper gave Bill this Orwellian explanation: quote: | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 41 Registered: 01-2009 |
Call me old fashioned but I'm not sure what's even remotely scandalous about an elected representative acting to represent the opinions/interests/concerns of those who elected her. No one said there's anything scandalous about that. It's her job. The difference is that she and the coalition of pro-DRIC legislators swore up and down they didn't oppose Moroun and praised the AB as a wonderful thing. Her letter and its language showed that to be untrue, effectively handing the DIBC evidence that she's in opposition of their effort. Tobocman told me nothing was happening in Lansing to stop the second span, and that he was simply defensive of the DRIC study. Fair enough, and he never said anything to me critical of the AB itself. In fact, he used its wonderfulness as evidence it didn't need replaced by a second span at all. Tlaib's letter was an out-right attack and reversal of position on the AB. And some of her close allies told me they thought it an unwise move to author. Again, the bridge battle is one for hearts and minds in the legislature, which will OK the DRIC funding or not, and every move by both sides will be scrutinized. Just like the requests by the DIBC for using surface streets for the project, outside the Gateway's parameters, is not smart. It clearly gives people here and in Lansing the wrong message. | ||
Melocoton Member Username: Melocoton Post Number: 75 Registered: 01-2008 |
It seems to me you're hanging an awful lot on this letter, from which you quote sparingly in the blog post. So she condemned the DIBC as a lousy neighbor to her constituents--so what? Her displeasure with the company's behavior shouldn't be a secret or a scandal to many in or out of the legislature, particularly since the DIBC is running afoul of those radical firebrands in MDOT. But I must confess I still don't understand what the point of the blog post is--Tlaib's not friendly enough to the bridge folks? She won't have tea parties with Dan Stamper? You're also overlooking the fact that not everything important happens in Lansing. Tlaib's intent, I presume, was to get citizen action and engagement in a process that has bypassed us almost entirely. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 42 Registered: 01-2009 |
And she called the bridge itself "a monstrosity." The DIBC's record as a neighbor stands for what it is. No one is debating that. The hearts/minds that matter are in Lansing. They control the dollars -- and fate -- of DRIC. She's preaching to the choir in her district, for the most part. I don't think anyone was confused as to her position on things. And I'm sorry you don't understand the blog post: The point is about the tactics of the hearts/minds campaign, in which every move and comment is scrutinized and billions of dollars are at stake. And despite the strawman questions, I didn't suggest she wasn't playing nice. She doesn't need to. But why bomb-toss and play into your opponent's hands when your side has been so careful in the past not to directly attack the second span effort (and the bridge itself, which most Detroiters view positively for its 80 years). Moroun has a portfolio of monstrosities, starting with the depot. The Ambassador Bridge isn't one of them. Tlaib's letter had merit -- her warnings proved correct (which I wrote about this week). But when the DRIC folks misstep, expect it to be pointed out. And DRIC backers in Lansing say this was a minor misstep (the letter). It's easy to demonize the DIBC -- the ammunition is there. But the DRIC folks are not infallible. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 43 Registered: 01-2009 |
And also, if you're talking about the latest blog entry, I was crediting her for a potential breakthrough in relationship with the DIBC. I'm not going to wager that it'll improve, but she deserves credit for her willingness to take the tour and meet with the DIBC people. I see nothing but positives in that. It's at least an attempt, and perhaps they could be additional understanding on both sides. It's at least worth trying. Unless you're of the view they all should just bicker and bitch back and forth. Doesn't seem to have accomplished much other than creating hostility on both sides. I'm wondering if we're going to end up with both bridges in two years, and without the traffic to justify them both at this point, and they'll both run deficits that require new subsidies. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4251 Registered: 10-2003 |
Bill, I'm a bit confused. I'm not sure anyone believes the public DRIC-backers to be infallible. What I think you're missing, or should I say largely ignoring, is that the DIBC has a clear record with the people and entities it has delt with, and a mostly negative one. On the other side, you have a public consortium which can at least claim (if even it doesn't work out in practice) that they have the 'greater good' in mind, or at least a good greater than that of a for-profit, private business with a dubious record when it comes to working with its neighbors. It should come as no surprise, then, that the public side will deal heavily with a private company who's made no secret of, and has had no qualms with, dealing heavily with the public. I think your focus on the missteps of the DRIC is perhaps not what you should be putting so much focus on, that is, unless you have a horse in this race you feel the need to announce. That's not a request that you don't report on both sides of this thing, but your writing seems to imply or steer towards the opinion that both of these projects are (or should be) equally supported by the affected, and/or that the leadership of each proposal have the same people, things, and values in common, and that's simply not true. Quite frankly, I think the DIBC/DRIC debate has long since been decided by those most directly affected (and even those more indirectly affected) by each proposal, and they inherently know who's more closely aligned with their values and can thus execute a more acceptable product. I think to try and paint the debate otherwise is being disingenuous. And, this kind of brings me to the question I wanted to ask, which relates to the question at the end of your last post. You say that your concern is the possibility of having two bridges. But, knowing that Matty has promised he's building his regardless, and that its further ahead (as any private project is versus one that has to deal form consortium of many different local, state and federal agencies) I'm wondering, then, if what you're really asking is whether the DRIC is necessary? | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 45 Registered: 01-2009 |
I'm wondering, then, if what you're really asking is whether the DRIC is necessary? I think everyone agrees it's needed, but the $1 billion question is, When? Matt Moroun said that very thing to me. They know another crossing -- aside from their new span -- will be needed. His question to me was, why now (meaning the 2013 opening), when traffic doesn't justify it. No matter what you think of the Morouns, they have a legitimate business concern, that a new bridge in 2013 could force everyone into losses and require public subsidies. No one wants that, as far as I know. And experience shows that 2013 is a very, VERY expedited time frame for a project this large at the stage it's in right now. The assumption we all make is that traffic will return to the pre-9/11 levels that were steadily rising. It's a question of when. If Chrysler disappears, it could be a long, long time before we see the cargo traffic return to those levels. I know the chamber and businesses support the DRIC, but if you re-phrase that question of support if there's a subsidy required, that support may be very qualified. I find difficult to accept at face value the MDOT justification that homeland security requires a second bridge, and the feds have expressed skepticism on that front, too. For years it was traffic! traffic! traffic! Then all traffic fell through the floor. Then it was security! security! security! Heck, I'm hopeful we're one day need even more bridges than we have now because it means the economy is booming. But for now, it's not and it strains logic to think it will be in 2013. I think there can be a happy medium solution to all this, and if I could think of it, I'd sell it to both Moroun and MDOT, LOL. If I was a wagering man, and I am, I would guess that the DIBC will be the private entity that runs the DRIC P3. It's logical: They know how to operate a toll bridge in this market, and it would give them a cut of the profits (if there are any!). | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1744 Registered: 05-2005 |
fyi. in talking to a buddy in buffalo, the DIBC is also trying to acquire the ownership or at least sole management (he wasn't that clear on it) of the peace bridge in buffalo as well. that would give him a bridge at either end of lake erie and control (and proceeds) from transit from two internation crossings. one more piece of his empire. is this being purused to offset losses that the DRIC would impose on ambassador bridge traffic? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3619 Registered: 07-2004 |
I'm just gonna guess that the only journalists who get to talk to Matty are seen as sympathetic by the DIBC. Everybody who's unsympathetic gets Stamper. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 392 Registered: 10-2007 |
Moroun's actions with the Michigan Central Depot and the book warehouse alone are enough to make me never trust him, and that's even before you get to the illegal expansion into Riverside Park. He and his company are a scourge to the people of the City of Detroit, plain and simple. Thank goodness for someone like Rashida who's willing to fight them and has not been bought off. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 46 Registered: 01-2009 |
I'm just gonna guess that the only journalists who get to talk to Matty are seen as sympathetic by the DIBC. Everybody who's unsympathetic gets Stamper. Fair might be a better word. And I imagine any private businessman is going to refuse to talk to a publication they see as vendetta-driven. That's human nature, regardless if the vendetta is driven but good or bad intentions. Screaming hyperbole that someone is a nefarious criminal slumlord scumbag isn't likely to make someone willing to grant you and audience, LOL. I suppose anyone less than a bomb-thrower is likely to be seen as sympathetic, so that would include Crain's, Detroit News, Free Press, Canada's National Post, etc. We get our share of criticisms by both DIBC and DRIC. I've met with Matty just once, on a facilities tour (I thing Leduff got something similar). Matt Moroun I've talked with a couple times. Mostly, it's Dan Stamper and Mickey Blashfield. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 397 Registered: 10-2007 |
But what if it's true that they're a nefarious criminal slumlord scumbag? Isn't it someone's responsibility as a journalist to say so, whatever the repercussions to their "access" to the scumbag in question? Or is it like the Bush administration, that no one in the press is willing to fully tell it like it is or examine things too closely, lest they lose access to their news source? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3631 Registered: 07-2004 |
Nice straw-manning, and shifting from people to institutions. I guess just an example of your "fairness." ;P | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 47 Registered: 01-2009 |
I suppose it would be their responsibility if they blindly buy into the sound and fury of the breathless criticism, no? There are outlets for the bomb throwers, and outlets for measured tones. But it's more and more evident that unless you've drunk deeply of one side's Kool Aid, you're a partisan enemy in these parts, LOL. I was always more of a Country Time lemonade guy, which wasn't hip at Jonestown. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3634 Registered: 07-2004 |
Bshea: I grew up with a set of encyclopedias from 1938. Sure were lots of "fair" descriptions of Hitler and Mussolini in there. Of course, the writers' precious access wasn't worth much a few years later ... | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 48 Registered: 01-2009 |
You're seriously even coming within a light-year of comparing Moroun to Hitler? Are you for real? Can someone tell me if things are truly so out of kilter and without an adult sense of moral perspective on here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G odwin%27s_law This is why the bomb-throwers can't be taken seriously. This reeks of the noxious propaganda you see from Hamas that equates Israel to Nazi Germany. Truly loathsome and offensive. And tell me, who at Funk & Wagnalls had access to the inner circle of the National Socialists in 1938? I was totally unaware that dictators were issuing press passes to encyclopedia entry writers. Fascinating. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3635 Registered: 07-2004 |
No, Bsha. I think I know types like you. Always coming in their jogging pants when they smell somebody comparing somebody to Hitler. Haha. Look at you. You can barely contain your excitement even as you miss the point. "Oooh, the goldmine!" What I'm telling you is that people who write articles about the powerful often use the mask of "fairness" to avoid arriving at conclusions that any penny ante person could make in a heartbeat. And I grew up aware of that, being a young reader. It left an impression on me. Of course, for you, that's not the tender story of my upbringing (for the lack of dripping from the mouth of an important nabob into the ear of a hack business writer, in which case it could be) but a chance to attack the messenger. If writers about Moroun were half the scrappy street-fighter you're playing on this board, journalism would be in good health. Don't worry over it too much, though. Keep on raving. You're sort of entertaining, in spite of yourself. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1748 Registered: 05-2005 |
bill shea: DIBC advocate or agitator? | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 50 Registered: 01-2009 |
Ah, another Keyboard Kommando, irritated at being called out for making such an incredibly stupid, inappropriate and clumsy comparison. I'm well aware of your type, whose courage of their convictions extends the same distance as their wireless Internet range. And you add in some juvenile insults and crude junior high language to mask your intellectual dishonesty. I'll rest easier at night knowing your capable fingers are on the pulse of journalism. I perfectly understood your bumbling point. It's not excitement, it's disgust. And not even surprised disgust. I grew up with a family tree shorn of several branches because they perished in POW and work camps, and I understand how half-bright digital goons rob the horrors of history of their moral impact by engaging in Godwin posited. He might have had you in mind personally. But please, continue to deploy oafish little analogies, even obvious, if unintentional, lies such as yours (encyclopedia writers have access? LOL ...) | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 399 Registered: 10-2007 |
I think there's certainly a place for balanced reporting, and I am glad that Bill Shea has come here to give us his perspective. But my problem is that attempts to "balance" reporting can sometimes tend to obscure what is actually happening rather than shed an examining light on it. This is particularly true when someone's actions should speak louder than their words, and in fact give lie to those words, as is the case with Matty Moroun. Mr. Moroun has obvious disdain for the people, history, and heritage of the City of Detroit and State of Michigan, and even for our governments, which he has repeatedly openly defied. The actions he has taken (or not taken) have displayed his disdain in the most stark terms possible, and should raise deep doubts about anything he has to say. At some point, in the light of a person's actions, their words become worse than meaningless, and reporting them as a defense of their actions rather than as the obvious falsehoods they are becomes an exercise in either willful suspension of judgment (for whatever purpose) or class protection. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 51 Registered: 01-2009 |
But my problem is that attempts to "balance" reporting can sometimes tend to obscure what is actually happening rather than shed an examining light on it. I'd agree, and that reminds me of the comments Hunter Thompson used to make about Nixon. "Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful." (Rolling Stone, 1994) The difference being, of course, the outlet. Writing for Rolling Stone or Metro Times or even a daily newspaper is one thing. The things I've been reporting on lately about the bridge are not the sort of things where you go off half-cocked on hate-fueled ravings. I'm reporting on the business and economics of the bridge deals. I'm not on a populist crusade, and I'm not writing personality pieces. I'm dealing in facts, not heated rhetoric. There are very large public policy and interest questions to be answered, on both sides. "Fear & Loathing in Bridge Country" is not something I'm going to be doing. | ||
Melocoton Member Username: Melocoton Post Number: 76 Registered: 01-2008 |
OK, OK. I think we can all agree to repudiate Hitler. Anyhow, the only people suggesting Tlabi is an "agitator" and not an "advocate" are the DIBC flacks who accuse her of riling up us poor dopes in SW Detroit. In his dense, Shea didn't frame the issue like that, I don't think. But like others have said, I have no problem with agitating. The point of doing so is to get citizens mobilized, which again is a part of the political process Shea seems not to be considering, in favor of the back-room "inside baseball" Lansing stuff. On another note, as for quote: It seems to me the public should have no concern in protecting the Morouns' business concerns, legitimate and (let's not forget) otherwise. If there's no need for a new bridge, then they shouldn't be building their second span. If there is a need for a new bridge, then I couldn't care less if they lose money on the Ambassador bridge. You're saying the worst case scenario here is two publicly subsidized international crossings? Not an even more powerful billionaire holding the city and Ontario hostage? | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 52 Registered: 01-2009 |
And I'd add, when questions about Moroun's stewardship of his properties are an appropriate issue to broach for what I'm working on, I'll do so. Thus far, the rail depot, book warehouse and other properties are nothing more than tangents to the bridge, which has issues all its own without bringing unneeded baggage. Some people think I'm worried about "access" which is laughable because I have no more or less than anyone else. I'll ask any question I feel necessary to get the story out. I certainly had no problems asking about Tlaib's concerns this week and pointing out MDOT and the feds say the DIBC has endangered the federal Gateway project money. But I guess that's still too bootlicking for some. I should have screamed it in the old man's ear and then blasted him with a fire extinguisher or something. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 351 Registered: 08-2004 |
Whoa, here . . . deep breaths and keyboard breaks everyone. N-O-W. Y'all are makin' me regret lighting this fuse four days ago, though it sure seems longer. At the time, I thought it was about Rep. Tlaib v. Moroun, Blashfield, et al. Never figured we'd get to Adolf, Benito, Hunter and schoolyard taunts (hack business writer . . . intellectual dishonesty) in under 100 hours. 'Least no one's slingin' your mama. Yet. While I'm also "glad that Bill Shea has come here to give us his perspective," as EastSideAl says, and while I relish vigorous debate as much as the next verbal brawler, my eyes are starting to hurt. Bill: Consider turning in before 3 a.m.+ tonight. With all respect, you must be bushed (10 posts on this thread in 15 hours, plus a day job) and it shows. Just sayin' Forumers: He didn't register two months ago to be called a hack, an agitator (that's truly rich here!) or accused of being "bought off." Disagree agreeably. Amusing to know that Bowling Green State U. communication scholars Josh Atkinson and Clay Rosati feel "your web community can provide valuable insight about how average citizens can use the Internet and other forms of interactive media to bypass economic and cultural elites, and effectively shape their cities and communities." Yeah, that's clearly our value proposition! | ||
Downtown_lady Member Username: Downtown_lady Post Number: 607 Registered: 08-2008 |
quote: What seems stupid, inappropriate and clumsy to me is that although Detroitnerd never actually compared Moroun to Hitler, that hasn't stopped you from pretending that he did, just because he mentioned Hitler's name in a post. His point was about fairness in reporting: "What I'm telling you is that people who write articles about the powerful often use the mask of 'fairness' to avoid arriving at conclusions that any penny ante person could make in a heartbeat." Hitler was the name he used to illustrate his point, but you can fill in the blank with any well-known, controversial person or event and the point remains the same. As for Godwin's Law, while that may be an interesting idea from a sociological standpoint, it seems rather ridiculous that "whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically 'lost' whatever debate was in progress." (Quote is from the link you provided.) I understand why Detroitnerd calls this a goldmine -- it seems like an easy way for someone to claim victory when they're being intellectually outmatched. quote: I think you misspoke in the paragraph above -- I think you meant to say lack of stewardship, as Moroun has been anything but a steward. Finally, it seems to me unfathomable that any journalist worth his salt could have the ear of Moroun and not broach the topic of his abandoned buildings. That topic may be "tangential" to the bridge but it is integral to Moroun, and would seem relevant to anyone interested in telling the full story. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 53 Registered: 01-2009 |
What seems stupid, inappropriate and clumsy to me is that although Detroitnerd never actually compared Moroun to Hitler, that hasn't stopped you from pretending that he did, just because he mentioned Hitler's name in a post. So if it's not a comparison, why use Hitler's name? Why not, say, David Hasselhoff? Or Kermit the Frog? Oh, they have to be controversial? Pol Pot, perhaps? Jack the Ripper? Because if journalists don't write frantic screeds calling Moroun a criminal slumlord every time they write about something related to him, they're just hacks and letting him slink off to become a bloodthirsty dictator? By not writing breathless prose on what you say are Moroun's various evils, reporters are allowing him to become the next ____. That about right? If given the alleged free pass you think he has, what's he going to become? The Wolfman? Kwame? Lex Luthor? Whatever his point was, he went about it in a foolish, offensive way. He didn't just "mention Hitler" in a passing reference. Perhaps to certain ilk, using Hitler to make points in insignificant arguments is no big deal, and it doesn't matter if history is cheapened and Hitler because some silly figure. But it matters to some people. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 54 Registered: 01-2009 |
Finally, it seems to me unfathomable that any journalist worth his salt could have the ear of Moroun and not broach the topic of his abandoned buildings. That topic may be "tangential" to the bridge but it is integral to Moroun, and would seem relevant to anyone interested in telling the full story. Not every story is The Life & Times of Manuel Moroun. Sometimes, it's just a story about the latest happening with two bridges. But I guess some people feel it's not complete if there's not a "And Moroun is also an evil slumlord SOB" in there somewhere. Which I guess -- out of fairness -- would require me to mention the alleged crimes and/or missteps by the other parties, such as the Canadian government, city of Detroit and MDOT. Or is it just Moroun you want attacked? Just trying to keep it straight. Gonna make for some long stories! | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 400 Registered: 10-2007 |
Certainly those abandoned eyesores and his company's complete lack of stewardship over their current properties are relevant to any discussion of why Mr. Moroun should not be given any more property or bridges to play with. As well as why the continued profitability of his operation should be of no concern whatsoever to any level of our government in making a decision about a new crossing. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 352 Registered: 08-2004 |
quote:Puh-leese. You might as well add your mama is a ..... and get it out of the way, DL. On the off-chance Bill actually can quit us for a spell, one point on his behalf. (Perhaps I should follow my own keyboard break suggestion, but here goes.) He interviewed Father & Son about the Gateway project, not about "the full story" of their holdings, stewardship (or absence of same), sense of civic responsibility (if any), how Matty feels about Hitler and Mussolini or anything else. (Charlie LeDuff did a long profile; Bill wrote a spot news situationer.) Seems fathomable to me, DL, as does Bill's status as a journalist worth his salt -- though he mercifully doesn't sling cliches like that. In case anyone wonders: * Never met him or spoke with him. * Only disclosure is that I've posted comments on his For Immediate Release blog twice about other topics. | ||
Downtown_lady Member Username: Downtown_lady Post Number: 608 Registered: 08-2008 |
Bshea, your posts are exhausting. The logic is obviously lost on you. You have a remarkable way of twisting and exaggerating words and coming to random, raving conclusions. Here are some examples: "Because if journalists don't write frantic screeds calling Moroun a criminal slumlord every time they write about something related to him, they're just hacks and letting him slink off to become a bloodthirsty dictator?" Seriously? I think I said that if you were to ask about the abandoned properties you could better tell the full story, but I can see how you might confuse that with how not writing about the buildings will allow him to become a "bloodthirsty dictator." "By not writing breathless prose on what you say are Moroun's various evils, reporters are allowing him to become the next ____." Once again, I don't think I said anything about him being "allowed" to become anything based on the actions of a reporter. "He didn't just 'mention Hitler' in a passing reference. As a matter of fact, he did just mention him in a passing reference. "Perhaps to certain ilk, using Hitler to make points in insignificant arguments is no big deal, and it doesn't matter if history is cheapened and Hitler because some silly figure." Detroitnerd mentions Hitler in a passing reference to illustrate a point, and you interpret that to be cheapening history? Not only that, but the cheapening of history "doesn't matter" to "certain ilk"? You got all of that from a mention of Hitler's name? That is about the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. And to be honest, it reeks of some kind of subtle censorship, that people can only make reference to historical figures that you find palatable. I can't debate someone who just doesn't get it. Hitler. You win. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 353 Registered: 08-2004 |
Respectfully, Downtown_Lady, it's not anywhere near ludicrous. I will try to explain why: Casual references to AH, the Holocaust or genocide -- even as a passing reference -- are personally, deeply, viscerally offensive to many people because they seem to trivialize a unique historic tragedy. Virtually nothing is like . . . remiscent of . . . akin to . . . or comparable to what Nazi and fascists did in Europe 60-70 years ago -- with the exception of more limited tragedies in Cambodia, Bosnia and currently in Darfur. Blood pressure rises and tempers flare among survivors and their descendants (I am one) when we hear comments that seem to conflate any methodical wrongdoing with crimes against humanity . . . . . . even when no offense or direct comparison is intended, as clearly was the case here with what I see as Detroitnerd's fast 'n loose choice of language as this discussion heated up. Some things really deserve to be out of bounds. Thanks for understanding, I hope. [ On a far, far less important note, DL, you appear to still wish that Bill's Gateway Plaza update actually had been a takeout on Moroun World. quote:He tried, from what I can tell, to present as full a story as space reasonably allows about plaza status, delays, next steps, disputes, land issues, border traffic back-and-forth, etc. He has said that repeatedly, which may seem exhausting only because it's not being understood. ] Peace. (Message edited by RealityCheck on March 10, 2009) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4257 Registered: 10-2003 |
After reading through all of the crap that went down after I left in the morning, this post by Melocoton easily sums up the entire debate, for me: quote: There's really nothing else to say. It shows why the question about Rashida Tlaib being an agitator or advocate is either entirely irrelevant, or a stinking, red herring. It is not the responsibility of Rep. Tlaib, or anyone on the public side of this, to look out for the interests and well-being of the Matty Moroun's DIBC proposal, nor should they have to tip-toe around a hard-baller, period. Now, if Tlaib is spreading lies and/or has her facts wrong, I expect the media to correct her and to bring her to task. But, at the end of the day, this isn't about her no matter how much a few may want it to be. And the end of the day, Matty is a big boy who has shown he has no problem or moral qualms with screwing people over for a quick buck. To even imply however lightly that its Tlaib's words or actions that are paramount in this issue, or that Matty should be coddled or treated to any greater fairness than he treats those he deals with with, is laughable. The public proposal doesn't need to accommodate Matty; Matty does a good job of forcing himself on things and people all by his lonesome. BTW, Bill's right about one thing and that is Godwin's Law. Even mentioning Hitler is the perfect way to kill ones credibility in an debate and distract from your point. It's unnecessary hyperbole if the comparison is even only loose. Whether you believe the comparison is apt or not, it's not if you want to continue on seriously in a debate. EDIT(2): Bill, one more thing. I noticed in the thread on the two mass transit rail proposals that you seem to say, if not in the exact words in something similar, that the public/government should get out of the way private proposal and find a way to work in with it later, so your advocating for the private sector to lead the way, I think. Now, this along with you working for a business paper, I'm wondering if you're not just playing devil's advocate, rather you are the devil's advocate. By that, I mean, where some of us may be getting lost with you is that we may very well be on different ends of political and social philosophy, and it'd be good to know where you stand to avoid confusion in the future. It's my belief with something like transportation, that it's the public sector that needs to dictate and lead on this with the private sector improving upon it. In each of these cases, whether it be the bridge or regional light rail, you seem to be taking quite to opposite philosophy. Am I wrong? (Message edited by lmichigan on March 10, 2009) | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1225 Registered: 07-2007 |
It's important to keep in mind who is the audience for a publication like Crain's. When Keith Crain decides what's going to be on the pages of his publications, he's not worried about what interests or concerns the average Joe or a community activist or the public at large. He's looking at what's of interest to the CEOs and management of Detroit's corporate and business community. I know that Crain's has a larger population of readers but at the end of the day, Keith Crain's publishing for that audience, not those of us who don't fall into that category. Understanding that focus helps to explain why a Crain's rarely is the source of hard-hitting exposes on corporate corruption or misdeeds. It's not in the interest of the publisher to push those stories. The CEOs don't want to read story after story about the crooks among them. If they want dirt, it's the gossipy back-biting of who is getting shafted in the business world. When a publication like Crain's does do an "investigative" piece, the focus is almost always on conflicts in personalities or clashes between two competing powers. If there's a story on criminal or unethical behavior, it will make the pages of Crain's only after it's broken in the mainstream press, like the the News or Free Press. That's why you might read about the feuding within the Ilitch family but you won't read about Mike Ilitch's systematic demolition of downtown properties. This isn't a criticism of Bill's reporting specifically, it's just how these business publications operate. If anyone thinks that this focus is somehow forced on the publication because of the fear of pushback from big business or advertisers, you're misunderstanding the dynamic at work here. In Crain's world, the businessmen and women are the good guys and people in government or in the community who ask questions or criticize a particular business are automatically suspect and considered "agitators" and "troublemakers". The attitude starts at the top with the publishers, like Keith Crain, and is reflected all the way down the line to the journalists writing the stories. It's not that writers are afraid to ask those questions or that they are unaware of the crooks in the world. Instead, their assumptions are geared towards the view that those on the business side of the story are in the right until it's clearly demonstrated that they are not. Even then, there's little interest in exposing the crooks unless they are caught screwing over their fellow members of the business community. Screwing over the public-at-large isn't a news story for Crain's. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4262 Registered: 10-2003 |
Novine, I don't think you need to explain to us why this is. I think most of us know why. In fact, in my post just above I make mention that Bill works for a business paper, so that's sure to color his comments. Speaking for myself, though, I'm simply trying to get Bill to admit his bias or at least his difference in philosophy, here, instead of 'pretending' to play devil's advocate and some kind of honest broker in the situation. If you have a horse, declare it and quit bullshitting us is all that I'm asking. His whole proposition seems to be that Matty and the DIBC are getting the short end of the stick in all of this, and that they are being treated unfairly (or not as fairly as they should be) by the local government, and I think that's just silly, or at the very least missing the real issue and misfocused. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 354 Registered: 08-2004 |
Curt Guyette weighs in today on Rashida, Matty and his new bridge plans in Metro Times' News Hits. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1750 Registered: 05-2005 |
nice quote: | ||
Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 1117 Registered: 11-2005 |
I will post this on metro Times as well but the street is 1000 Scotten.... | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 55 Registered: 01-2009 |
I'm wondering if you're not just playing devil's advocate, rather you are the devil's advocate. Well, if you ask my ex-wives, I'm not the advocate, but the devil his ownself. It's my belief with something like transportation, that it's the public sector that needs to dictate and lead on this with the private sector improving upon it. In each of these cases, whether it be the bridge or regional light rail, you seem to be taking quite to opposite philosophy. Am I wrong? In the case of the bridge and mass transit, how does one define "public sector?" If Moroun owns a bridge and follows the law, he can build what he wishes -- it's his risk. He has to follow certain laws and business philosophies, or he'll be out of business/lose money. That's the universal risk of the private sector. If the public deems a new bridge is needed, then by all means a bridge can be built. But is it needed right now or even by 2013? It the public wants a new bridge, and it ends up meaning DRIC an DIBC run massive deficits that require toll increases and/or tax subsidies, well ... it's proof the public isn't always right, even if it <i>has</i> the right. Studies and facts are important to help political leaders make decisions on such things, but in the case of the DRIC, it's evident ideology is at work locally and regionally (although the feds don't care that the AB is private). If MDOT is going to sell DRIC for a decade as needed because of traffic, then drop that as a justification in favor of some homeland security reasoning that even Washington doesn't buy, call me skeptical. Not skeptical of the eventual need for the new bridge, or public ownership of it, but of the justification and push to get it done so quickly when the immediate need isn't there. I don't want to see higher tolls on the AB, and deeper taxes to support a failing DRIC. There is a solution, but that's not it. I'm also not saying wait until traffic is backed up again, but look at a realistic time frame that won't cost everyone MORE money. As for Woodward, the private effort has been a private-public effort all along in terms of planning. In the end, the private line isn't new, but actually just renews a transit method that was killed in the 1950s. I think they have a lot of work yet to do on making sure the effort is blended properly with DTOG. Personally, just speaking for myself, I'm excited by the idea of private money jump starting such a project, and eliminating red tape and the waiting period ... especially since New Starts money is not guaranteed and is often eaten up by New York City's massive projects (two years ago Gotham took something like 50 percent of New Starts cash for two projects). I believe government has its place, and that public interest has to drive private efforts like M1-Rail. I think that's only logical since the private sector backers aren't stupid and they're not going to invest millions into something the public doesn't want. They can just do things faster (and often smarter) than government. And government already has given its blessing to this project with its approvals in the legislature. Understanding that focus helps to explain why a Crain's rarely is the source of hard-hitting exposes on corporate corruption or misdeeds. I'd run that notion past Dan Gilbert and see what he thinks. Oh, and ask Lindsey Hunter. The Freep and the News were chasing Crain's pretty hard on all that. There are plenty of examples (Rita's Place, etc). If there's a story on criminal or unethical behavior, it will make the pages of Crain's only after it's broken in the mainstream press, like the the News or Free Press. Riiiiight. See above. And it's certainly fair to compare a weekly against two large daily newspapers, too, eh? We all have the same resources? We pick and choose what we concentrate our resources on, and there's no ideology driving particular types of stories. And I'm in a pretty good position to know if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how we work. You do. That's why you might read about the feuding within the Ilitch family but you won't read about Mike Ilitch's systematic demolition of downtown properties. Which Crain's reported on, before others, last year when the DDA handed them that $2 million. Anything else you'd like to be wrong about? We are a B-to-B publication, not a general-interest newspaper. His whole proposition seems to be that Matty and the DIBC are getting the short end of the stick in all of this, and that they are being treated unfairly ... Where did I say that? Ever? I will say, that when politicos say one thing, then do another, they're going to be called out. Some folks on here are awfully blinded by their deep biases. My entire original point was that DRIC backers said one thing, then did something else. That's not a defense of anything Moroun, or excusing anything he's done wrong. A lot of people here bridle unreasonable at the first hint of criticism of their "side" and see anything less than constant critical bashing of Moroun as evidence that they're in cahoots with him. Matty can defend himself. Bad policy has no defense. (Message edited by BShea on March 11, 2009) | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 923 Registered: 11-2003 |
Good discussion, this one. Don't see any problems with the Crain's reporting on the bridge issue. It's very complicated. Any mistakes will be hugely expensive. I haven't picked a side. One thing though. Mr. Maroun has a track record. He has been around for decades now. And his track record for SW Detroit is awful. His exclusive concern is profit and loss. He and his company have no interest in community building despite their enormous physical impact on the area. There has been virtually no philanthropy or assistance to the community over the many years. This is not going to change now. He will take as much as government allows. That is why transparency as well as government and activist oversight of anything Mr. Maroun is involved in is so important. It is effectively an adversarial, not a cooperative, situation. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 356 Registered: 08-2004 |
quote:Man, I really do wish you hadn't gone and typed that, Swingline. 'Cause now I'm about to do something that feels truly ironic, but this ex-journalist respects facts too much to let that hang there unchallenged. Lookit, many of us may imagine horns + a tail, but fact is this businessman does what most savvy (cunning?) ones do: They try to earn (buy?) goodwill, positive press and tax writeoffs the time-tested way . . . and Matty is no exception. Attack him for ulterior motives and giving with unclean hands, if you want, but trying to hedge your falsehood with virtually doesn't make it true. In reality, the bridge company has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to SW Detroit nonprofits and causes this decade. Yes, it's likely a minuscule percentage of earnings. No, it doesn't qualify anyone for canonization. Sure, call it partial reparations. But the $ was accepted and surely did some good. (Anyone here from Corktown/SW Detroit think so?) A partial list of DIBC giving this decade follows. Yes, the source is them. No, they don't list amounts. * Latino Family Services * Corktown CDC * Hubbard-Richard Residents organization * LaSed Senior Center * Vistas Nuevas Head Start * Roberto Clemente Recreation Center * Casa Richard Academy * St. Hedwig Parish * Ste. Anne de Detrroit * Gabriel Richard Historical Society * Detroit Hispanic Development Center * Webster Elementary * Patton park Baseball Association * Phoenix Academy * Earhart Middle School * Southwest Women's Education Empowerment Project (Madonna U. scholarships, 1999-2001) Good deeds by an otherwise neglectful property baron. Posted for balance. | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 951 Registered: 01-2005 |
Interesting list. I have never heard anyone from SW Detroit ever mention that the DIBC supports anything. Can this information be expanded? Who supplied it? I just have my doubts about its accuracy because, as I said, in 25 years I have never heard of anyone getting substantial support or contributions from the DIBC. It is never talked about. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 357 Registered: 08-2004 |
Info source: Page 5 of DIBC 75th anniversary brochure available here. (PDF loads slowly, due to 12 graphic-rich pages.) Their 'we do good deeds' claims also include support of WSU, Det Pub Library, Int'l Institute and Most Holy Trinity Outreach Program. Perhaps they shoveled in every place that got 100 bucks or maybe 50, for all I know. Wouldn't be surprised. But it says: quote:More recently, though, all I spot in a quick search is Matty's somewhat odd gift early this year of 4,000 winter hats to the Hispanic Business Alliance and several other community organizations. Let 'em wear synthetics? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4267 Registered: 10-2003 |
This is another side show. But, even if it weren't, what does anyone seriously think that's "charity"? "Charity"? Smells like hush money, to me, trying to buy into the good graces of neighborhoods. Anyway, Swingline's most important line was this one: quote: The fact that he has to be babysat, more so than most other multi-billionaires, sends up a dozen red flags. And the point about cooperation is not lost on me, either. Perhaps, Manny should concentrate, for the time being, on fixing up his existing bridge and perhaps trying to force another bridge down the throats of Buffalo residents. Yes, not in our backyards, indeed, because it seems that most all that he touches turns to crap for everyone save his own self. (Message edited by lmichigan on March 11, 2009) | ||
Vivadetroit Member Username: Vivadetroit Post Number: 185 Registered: 04-2008 |
A lot of the schools in SW Detroit/Corktown are hurting for cash, so they gladly accept the DIBC's donations of free snacks, t-shirts and cheap non-educational crap like this for the kids. The monetary value per school can't be more than $5K per year. I know he's tried to buy the support from other community organizations to the tune of less than $1000 and was told "thanks, but no thanks." | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 924 Registered: 11-2003 |
Reality, thanks for the balance (check). You do have some facts, and my facts about Mr. Maroun's philanthropy are limited to second hand information from community members/leaders and media. You mention $300K in 2001. That's a pretty big number. Have similar amounts been donated in other years? It would be surprising. It would also seem that if over the years the DIBC had used more philanthropy to partner with the community, Mr. Maroun would be viewed by leaders there as an ally rather than as a land grabbing, barrier building corporate opportunist. But this is all a side issue. Given the DIBC track record, there can be no dispute that much care and oversight needs to be applied to any DIBC plan in order to prevent permanent damage to the slow but steady progress being made in SW Detroit, one of Detroit's few fully intact urban neighborhoods. | ||
Realitycheck Member Username: Realitycheck Post Number: 359 Registered: 08-2004 |
Agree with all points ^, Swingline. quote:Saw no other boasting in quick search. Giving surge may have been timed as runup to 75th anniv. "Hush money," as Lmich says. Or reparations. |
