  Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 1110 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 24.231.189.137 |
...But Mike Ilitch recently said on a recent Detroit sports talk show that he hasn't ruled out building a new arena in the suburbs, Cullen said... http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20060805/BIZ/6 08050362 | ||
Hysteria Member Username: Hysteria Post Number: 1070 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Mixed messages from the Ilitch camp? The only place to build is Foxtown. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4079 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Like any big developer, he's simply trying to squeeze every dime he can out of city government (i.e. massive tax breaks) which is what the threats of moving outside the city are for. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2559 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.72.13 |
Agreed, this is nothing but posturing and leveraging. With recent court rulings to the contrary, the question of whether or not Eminent Domain can be used for a new arena site in the west Foxtown area (where Ilitch owns much, but not all of the land) is still questionable. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4081 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Well, I was going to call it extortion, but though it too harsh a word.  | ||
L_b_patterson Member Username: L_b_patterson Post Number: 306 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.255.228.125 |
ditto on the leverage comments. Its quite possibly the worst bluff ever considering how much more business it would bring to his vacant lot empire. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 671 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.246.10.173 |
there is always the question of if they build a new arena... whats gonna happen to the current facilty | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 87 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Moving to the suburbs is a silly fear. Most suburbs in the Detroit area are not that much better off fiscally than Detroit is. Most know that the Silverdome ended up being a boondoggle for the City of Pontiac. Detroit is probably the only one large enough financially to pull this off; and Detroit is in no position to take out bonds to replace a perfectly good (yet small stadium). If Illitch wants to replace this he will be on his own financially. It would be political suicide for the local politicians to kick into the kitty to pay for this while police are getting laid off thoughout the metropolitan area. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 170 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 68.62.6.147 |
No way he moves the Wings to the burbs'!!!! He wants/needs those 50+ nights a year (hopefully w/ playoffs) when people will be downtown spending their money at Hockeytown Cafe and parking in Ilitch lots. What he wants is to build an arena that will trump the Palace in every way and take concerts and other events away from B. Davidson. Hopefully it will be better than Comerica Park. Which I still hate. Don't even get me started about how much it sucks. I don't think building an arena will be as challenging. All it needs are....21,000 or so seats. Including tons of suites, of course. Plenty of restrooms. At least two resturants where people can sit down and eat. One of which should have some sort of a view of the ice. Main Event anyone? Some sort of configuration that will separate it form other new arenas. Sounds tough right? Well, I think Field did a great job of this with the suites. I'm thinking something like that. Not just a typical bowl in the Palace mold. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4728 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
Let Illitch build a new stadium. Joe Louis Arena is getting too old and too outdated for the Red Wings and it fans. Here is my proposed new stadium:  The Lafayette Projects will be a possibility for a "LITTLE CAESAR'S ARENA" Sure lots of low-income blacks will be put out, but all is well in the name of progress. Otherwise Illitch will move his Red Wings to the suburbs for good. | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 25 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 84.168.118.177 |
How much land does he actually own behind the Fox? (In the Chin-Tiki area) Are tehre any holdouts that would prohibit him putting it there? | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4733 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
Drankin21, Not enough room to put a " LITTLE CAESAR'S ARENA" from Park Ave. to Grand River Area. Mike Illitch can't even make a deal to get rid of those owners who owned some the small vacant buildings and lots. In a matter of fact He tried to buy the Town Pump building but the owners said "NO WAY! I'm fixing my building up so I get some fans for Tiger's and Lions games. Mike Illitch can't always get what he wants in Detroit. All is well in Illitchville, Detroit. | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 84.168.118.177 |
I knew about the Town Pump but wouldn't there be enough room for a true city arena (think Madison Square Garden) in all of the parking lots just south of there behind the fire station? I am assuming of course that he has muscled out all of the people that may have owned one or two of the vacant lots. I can't picture any substantial structures there. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 865 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.242.215.8 |
There is plenty of room between Park and Grand River, even if you left the buildings on park (town pump, centaur) intact. The buildings behind them are nothing special architecturally. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 676 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.42.23.2 |
"Sure lots of low-income blacks will be put out, but all is well in the name of progress" Your a real character. Interesting view I will say, I-75 thru Paradise Valley At-cha.... | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1271 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.2.1.103 |
Danny does have a flair for the dramatic. Although in this case, his usually sound demographic skills are a bit off... that Lafayette Park area is not particularly low-income, and has zero chance of being the new site for a hockey arena. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 268 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
Gistok: The use of iminent domain to acquire land for an arena for Ilitch is no longer possible in MI. Per a contact at the DEGC there have been several discussions w/ Ilitch about acquiring the S-H site for a large parking structure for a new arena to be constructed on Ilitch owned land across the street (Tuller Hotel site, United Artists site, the MI Bldg if he can acquire it, 1020 Grand River [the yellow building and adjoining parking lot which he owns] and the GAR Bldg which he owns.) That would be at least 4 contiguous square blocks incl the S-H site and that's supposed to be enough land and he won't need any of the land he already controls behind the Fox for the arena although he will build additional parking on some of it. Vacating streets won't be a problem because the traffic aspects of such a development [much larger] were all figured out in connection with the initial aborted plan to built the baseball stadium behind the Fox. The S-H parking garage would be very close to Comerica Park. The Fords are possibly going to participate in the construction of the S-H parking garage, which will also be used by Lions fans. Would anyone be surprised if MGM participated in some of the financing insofar as the development would bring 1000's of fans in close proximity to the casino/hotel? The feeling apparently is that the development would be a hugh factor in upgrading the whole west-of-Woodward area all the way back to the new MGM casino/hotel, and the MGM parking facilities could also be used by hockey fans. Spin-off from the Joe has always been hindered by its location and they won't want to repeat that mistake. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6550 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
3rdworld, is everything okay? This might be the first time you've ever posted about downtown real estate without mentioning that whatever it is, it's a colossal waste of money and will ultimately fail. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 3147 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.250.43.142 |
When did Ilitch buy the GAR Building? And that's all I'll say about that. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 866 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.242.215.8 |
What I would I give to be able to find that Simpsons GAR graphic right now. Stupid search function. D'oh! | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4090 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Could someone make a map? (Message edited by lmichigan on August 07, 2006) | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 269 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
Itsjeff: Did I say it was going to be successful? No. I just didn't comment on that aspect of it. Actually, after rereading my post, I did feel a little faint and nauseous but I am feeling better and am OK now. E_Hemingway: He bought the GAR bldg at the same time he acquired the Tuller site (and for nothing, at that.) Want some interesting history on that deal? Here goes. In the mid-80's I along w/ 3 other guys attempted to buy the Gar bldg and turn it into lofts; between us, we had about 100 years of successful real estate development history, and could have bought the building and developed it out of petty cash. The City owned it. The City would not talk w/ us, claiming it had been sold -on land contract - to as local architect. By FOI Request we found out the name of the vendee (purchaser.) And, the fact that the guy had not made payments for several years. He was politically well connected, obviously. So we went to the architect and told him we'd like to acquire the land contract from him for what he had in it, carry him for a piece of the deal and hire him to do the plans. (What was I, nuts?) Anyway the guy told us basically to screw ourselves. I then decided to go to Council and tell them we were willing to buy the building for cash blah blah blah. My view was that the City would have to sell to us, put it out for bids, or make the vended close THEN. However, we decided life is too short to try to do business w/ the crooked bastards who ran (run?) the City and said to hell w/ it. That's one of the reasons I chose my thread name.) Now, get this. Along comes the new baseball stadium, originally sited right next to the GAR. The architect ended up on the stadium design team (wouldn't have happened in a million years otherwise), relinquished his interest in the (long defaulted) land contract, and the City sold the GAR to Ilitch. That's how it works in Big D, then and now. If we'd have acquired the building then it would be the neatest, most successful loft development in Detroit...a long time ago. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2566 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.170 |
Thanks for the info 3WC. There are a few things I don't like about that plan, should the Ilitch's try to go thru with it. 1) A huge parking structure on the Statler site is a gawd awful development for such a prominent block. 2) Mr. Ilitch would be destroying part of the 1806 Woodward Plan of downtown streets. When the Lion's and Tigers built their stadiums, they built them just north of the perimiter of the Woodward Plan. Middle St. would disappear altogether, and Clifford would be closed for 1 block, thus isolating part of downtown. 3) The fully leased Michigan Building would have to be razed. Why would Mr. Ilitch want Mr. Pieroni to give up his occupied building, when there's a sea of empty Ilitch owned parking spots available north of Adams? I can't speak for Mr. Pieroni, but I bet he wants to "coexist" with new developments, not be flattened by it. Plus I doubt that Mr. Ilitch would want to cough up enough money that Mr. Pieroni would find acceptable compensation for his 13 story tower. If this were to go thru, I think that Mr. Ilitch's "historic preservation" reputation would sink even further than it already has. Boy I bet the National Trust would have a field day with the destruction of both the Michigan and United Artists buildings and former theatres (famous movie palace architects Rapp & Rapp and C. Howard Crane designs). Also I think that Mr. Pieroni enjoys the attention that his buildings former theatre space gets, what with people making pilgrimages from around the world coming to visit it. If eminent domain is dead in Michigan, and if perchance Mr. Pieroni doesn't want to sell, then maybe we can all breath a collective sigh of relieve, because there's no way that a new arena can be built south of Adams without the Michigan block. (Message edited by Gistok on August 07, 2006) | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2567 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.170 |
3WC, what makes this information you have shared with us even more distressing, is the fact that the Ilitch's may have discouraged Quicken Loans from looking at the Statler/Tuller site as a possible site for their new headquarters. That possible scenario doesn't exactly create a lot of affection for the (already besmirched) Ilitch's.... | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 510 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
Businessmen everywhere fear the rath of the National trust. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6551 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
I have a copy of the City of Detroit's Complaint to Quiet Title filed in Wayne County in 2005. It contains the history of the building and explains how, when the City tried to sell the building in 2000, they were challenged by the "Daughters of the Union Veterans of the Civil War," who argued that the City has to maintain the building as a veterans memorial for ever. Neo hosted it on his site back in 2005, but it's down now. If anyone else can post it, please send me an e-mail and I'll forward the complaint to you. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2568 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.170 |
I'm not sure they fear the National Trust.... but it sure does bring upon them a lot of unwelcome attention! (Just go ask DEGC head George Jackson!) | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 36 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 66.184.3.44 |
Anbody on this thread care to speculate what will become of The Joe if the Wings move? I remember several years ago that Illich talked about turning it into an aquarium. That would be great what with the river right behind it. Not only would Detroit regain a new aquarium, it would also be a tourist attraction. Now I know that is probably a pipe dream, but we can always hope. If you combined that with an expanded Cobo, by tearing down Cobo Arena, we'd have a great convention center in the middle of The Joe Louis Aquarium and Hart Plaza. Now it s time to go take my meds... | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4091 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Gistok, I have exactly the same concerns. I'm trying to figure out why Illitch doesn't want to just "tuck" this new stadium behind/into Foxtown instead of creating superblocks on the Woodward Plan/Necklace District? If I'm reading this right, would this also get rid of part of Bagley? I hope this doesn't go through because it sounds like the same poor planning that lead to the creation of Comerica Park at it's odd location (just a block off woodward instead of on Woodward). It sounds like he's trying to fit square peg into a triangular hole. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2569 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.170 |
I hear ya Lmichigan.... it'd be like putting a large tacky zircon brooch onto one side of an elegant "necklace". I don't think that Bagley would be closed. It's too important of an entrance/exit (via the Lodge ramp) to the entertainment district. But it would mean a parking structure on the Statler block, and an arena on the Tuller/UA, Michigan, and Cass/Adams blocks. (Note: the Cass/Adams block is where the MotorCity Casino Training currently takes place across Cass from the GAR Building.) | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 3148 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.250.43.142 |
Wait, if Itsjeff has the legal filings from 2005 to get the GAR building (which we knew about, because we freakin' talked about it here!!!) and the women challenged it, that means that Ilitch doesn't have it. Which we knew, because we've rehashed the building's history and ownership here a number of times! The only way Ilitch could have it is if the city got title in court and gave it to him within the last year. | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 100 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 141.217.214.203 |
The tearing down of Grand Circus Park, including the GAR Building, etc...is not an option. If city planners allow that, there is something totally messed up with that. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 270 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
I think it's a pretty good plan, personally. The parking garage on the S-H site would be a big benefit (if the charges were reasonable) for the businesses up and down Washington Blvd. and the David Whitney and Broderick Tower bldgs across the street. The PM station is right across the street at the Whitney and the garage could also provide parking for the CBD. I'd put a walkway from the station to a new parking structure. I can't see Ilitch building a parking structure to serve only the sport teams; there's got to be spin-off parking opportunities and the Washington Blvd/Foxtown/Woodward businesses would greatly benefit, and it would be a big incentive for more housing a la the Kales bldg development (which only got done because the City subsidized the u/ground tunnel to the Gr. Circus garage. A new parking structure behind the Fox wouldn't provide that kind of supplemental revenue generation. It's all just speculation anyway, like everything else. I can't imagine the Michigan Building being sold for that kind of deal. Itsjeff: I was not aware of a Quiet Title action i/c/w the GAR. How was it resolved? Do you have a case # to share w/us? I can't imagine the Daughters winning because it has not been maintained aa a war memorial for over 50 years. Besides, what standing would that group have to sue anyway? Very interesting. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4093 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
I'd hope any parking on the Statler site would perhaps be part of a mixed-used development on the site tucking away the parking and putting up a building face GCP. Or, at least do what Greektown has done and creatively incorporate parking into a larger development. I can't even imagine a parking garage fronting GCP all by itself on such a prominent and noticable lot. I'd heard rumors of a parking garage on this lot, too, but with something above/in front of it to hide it from GCP | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 3150 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.250.43.142 |
3rdWorld, the deed for the GAR Building requires the city to maintain the building as a war memorial "forever." The city filed in court asking that the word "forever" be given an expiration date. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4095 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
lol, kind of like what the definition of "is" is. Legalese at it's best. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 3151 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.250.43.142 |
Here's the scoop from the archives. I bolded the relevant sentence in #8. https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/23585/31952.html Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 2:01 pm: ______________________________ __________ The GAR building land was donated to the GAR who were responsible for construction of a specific type and size of building. After a period of thirty years the building and property reverted to the City who, as per of the 1896 City Council resolution authorizing the development of the building. Relevant exerpts from the Council resolution... ______________________________ __________ quote: Journal of the Common Council / City of Detroit February 11, 1896 To the Honorable the Common Council: Gentleman-Your Special Committee, consisting of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Public Buildings, to whom was referred the communication of the Corporation Counsel relative to the lease of the Cass Market site and the resolution accompanying the same, has had them under consideration and beg leave to report herewith the following resolution as a substitute for the one referred, and recommend that the same be adopted. Very respectfully, WALTER H. COOTS M.W. SCOVEL J.L. BATCHELDER W.P. SUMNER JOHN C. BLEIL JOSEPH WUELLNER Accepted and leave being granted, the following resolution was offered: By Ald. Coots Whereas, Fairbanks Post No. 17, Department of Michigan, Grand Army of the Republic, F.U. Farquhar Post No. 162 and the Michigan Association of Naval Veterans by their representatives, have petitioned the Common Council for permission to erect a Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Memorial building on the site known as the Cass Market site, in the City of Detroit, and which said site is bounded by Adams, Cass and Grand River avenues, said building to cost not less than $30,000, and to be erected under the supervision and in a manner satisfactory to the Board of Public Works of the said City of Detroit and to be not less than four stories in height, the first story thereof, or so much as may be deemed necessary, to be reserved for the maintenance of a market, all of which to be done without expense to the City of Detroit, and at the end of 30 years said building to revert and belong to the City of Detroit: therefore. Resolved That the Controller of the City of Detroit be, and hereby is directed to execute to the said Fairbanks Post No. 17 Department of Michigan, Grand Army of the Republic, F.U. Farquhar Post No. 162, and the Michigan Association of Naval Veterans a lease of the ground known as the Cass Market site, belonging to the City of Detroit and bounded by Adams, Cass and Grand River avenues, upon substantially the following terms and conditions: First – That said lessees pay therefore the sum of one dollar, per annum during the continuance of said lease. Second – Said lessees to erect on said ground a Memorial Building four stories and not less than 70 feet high, but if the Board of Public Works approve it may be of less height, but in no event to be less than 65 feet high, and to be built of stone; said building to be 80 feet front on Adams avenue, 105 feet front on Cass avenue, and 115 feet on front on Grand River avenue. Third – The erection of said building shall not be commenced until the amount necessary for the construction thereof shall have been fully and in good faith subscribed. Fourth – The foundation for said building to be completed by January 1st, 1897, and the entire structure shall be completed within two years of the date of the lease. Fifth – The cost of said building shall not be less than $30,000. Sixth – Said lessees shall forthwith make all reasonable efforts to obtain from the heirs of General Louis Cass all reversionary or other interest, right, or title in and to said ground, and when so obtained to immediately transfer the same to the City of Detroit. Seventh – The first floor of said building or so much thereof, as may be deemed necessary by the Common Council of the City of Detroit, shall be so constructed and shall be devoted to the purposes of a public market, substantially in accord with the deed of Louis Cass to the City of Detroit. Eighth – The term of the lease shall be for a period of 30 years, at the end of which time the building herein provided for shall belong absolutely to the City of Detroit, who shall continue to maintain it as a public memorial building, except that portion which is required to be devoted to the purposes of a public market. Ninth – Said lessees shall not be required to pay taxes upon said ground or the building erected thereon. Tenth – The erection and construction of said building shall be under the supervision of the Board of Public Works of the City of Detroit, and from plans and specifications approved by it. Eleventh – The Controller shall have the power and it shall be his duty to terminate said lease on January 1st, 1897, if said foundation is not then completed, and at the end of two years if said building be not then completed or for any other substantial failure to comply with the conditions of said lease. ______________________________ __________ Olympia Holdings had a holding letter from the City that was flawed and did not recognize the deed restrictions placed on the building. The City and Olympia have let said letter expire and quietly go away. The building sits in limbo with P&DD making no motion to RFP the building for redevelopment. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6552 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
3rdworld, Planning and Development Department of the City of Detroit v. Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, case no. 05-514287, Hon. John H. Gillis, Jr. I don't know if there's a judgment. Is anyone here able to research this case? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6553 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
No one took up my offer to host the complaint. If anyone would like to see it, send me an e-mail and I'll forward it to you. It really is interesting. It includes a photocopy of the original land grant, signed by Lewis Cass. | ||
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn Post Number: 173 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.199.98.165 |
I'll take a look. Have family at one time very much involved in the GAR legal case as part of the Sons of Union Veterans as we had thrice-great grandfather in the Illinois 34th and who spent his last days at the GAR building in the late 20s and early 30s. (He was from Detroit but being a believer in Lincoln, registered early in Illinois because Michigan was not taking volunteers at the start of the war I believe). In any case, usually see both the Sons and Daughters of the Union Veterans perform an extremely short but honorable ceremony for Michigan's Civil War soldiers in Elmwood Cemetery on Memorial Day. Now back to the GAR, last I heard the Sons & Daughters were making progress for their just cause. Don't know any of the details on this case, but still found it surprising news. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 271 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
Hamtramck_steve: it would seem the word "forever" clearly violates the Rule Against Perpetuities and therefore the restriction is void...not voidable. What say you? (I gather from previous posts you are a lawyer.) Itsjeff: Thanks for the cite. I'll try to follow up and get the outcome of the case. I find it hard to believe Ilitch does not own the GAR. My lawyers filed a FOI Request after the rumored sale and were eventually provided copies of the transaction documents, including the deed, which I presume was recorded. I'll try to find that stuff to see if I can shed some additional light on the topic. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6558 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
The complaint that I have has title searches attached. If you'll e-mail me, I'll send you a copy. | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 131 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 209.114.251.65 |
Eminent domain's death has been greatly exaggerated in this forum. It is true, the Wayne v. Hathcock case severely limited the application of eminent domain. It certainly wouldn't be as easy to use eminent domain today as it was when Ford Field and Comerica Park were built. There are, however, certain circumstances in which eminent domain could still possibly be used for the creation of an new hockey arena. My understanding is that the City of Detroit owns Joe Louis Arena and the City of Pontiac owns the Silverdome. The trend lately has been for the teams (or their owners) to own their stadiums. If a deal could be worked out where the City owned the new arena then it may still be possible to utilize eminent domain (this shouldn't impact the allocation of cost of the arena). The case suggests that the public use standard is higher when the property is transferred to a private entity. If the City owns it and leases it to the team you may get around the court imposed restrictions on eminent domain. It is also possible that even if Ilitch owned the new arena that the courts could find that a stadium represented more of a "public use" than an office park (the subject of the case in question). This, while possible, would be a bit of an uphill battle. You also have to show necessity. I don't know that you have that here, there are plenty of other places you could build the arena. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 3154 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 136.181.195.17 |
3rd world, what you say may be true, but then how does one justify the deed restrictions upon, say, the Rackham Golf Course? Wouldn't those also be void? Spartacus, I agree that certain people tend to overstate the "loss" of eminent domain. I can think of easy ways around the problem. Public ownership, like Comerica Park with the Wayne County Stadium Authority, along with having at least some of the facility open and publicly accessible on non-game days, like Ford Field. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1781 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Correct me if I am wrong, as Law school was a long time ago, but isn't the Rule Against Perpetuity directed toward controlling unknown heirs - i.e. i can't leave property to the children of my children if they are not born within 21 years of my death. I don't think it really applies to deed restrictions - i.e. how property can be used - but rather the ownership of said property into the future. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 273 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
H_s: I don't know what the Rackham deed restrictions are. I've heard the City (and the prospective developers) seem to think they can avoid them if there are any troublesome ones. Spartacus: You have of course have made all the right arguments one would make to be able to try to implement eminent domain for a new arena. I've read the Hathcock opinion at least 3 times and my conclusion is that a court when faced w/ the issue would go behind the form of the transaction to the substance of the issue and preclude its use. Alan Ackerman agrees with that position by the way. Have you read the Norwood opinion (Ohio Su Ct) issued last week? The Court basically told the U.S. Su. Ct. to shove its Kelo decision where the sun never shines. A unanimous decision at that, from a Court which has historically been municipality-friendly in these kinds of cases. Finally, in November, there should be an approved MI constitutional amendment which goes beyond the Hathcock decision and will forever bar such takings, or in the very narrow cases where eminent domain may still be used (for highways etc), the municipality will have to pay 125% of market value. Any attempt to use eminent domain for a new arena will end up before the MI. Su. Ct. which will summarily reverse any lower court decision permitting it. Neither Ilitch nor any other developer is even going to try in my opinion. Also, you may recall that the Alibri family was coerced under threat of condemnation to convey two of their parking lots behind the Fox to the City. Subsequently they sued to rescind the sale, and well before the Hathcock case was decided, the Court ordered Ilitch (who had acquired the lots from the City) to reconvey them to the Alibris for the amount of the original purchase price. The decision held up on appeal. Eminent domain ain't going to happen. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6561 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Got someone to host the complaint: | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 274 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.212.35.13 |
Itsjeff: Thanks. I have someone in the process of obtaining the file to determine the status of the case. I'll share whatever I get. Haven't read the complaint but I will as soon as I can. Thanks again. | ||
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn Post Number: 174 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.199.98.165 |
Well, the latest on the GAR from what I've just heard is that the case is now in a Federal Court and that the National Dept. of the GAR in Philadelphia now has some involvement. Also the Sons & Daughters of the Union Veterans are now asking that the city guarantee whoever takes possession of the building dedicate a portion of the building to the Veterans of the Civil War. It is this resolution that seems to be gaining ground. Also in the case, there is something about the city being held accountable for the Civil War artifacts that were in the building originally. (Were they moved to Fort Wayne?) | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 28 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 69.87.150.106 |
I have an idea that would work... I have drawn it out at least preliminarily. The current Joe footprint would fit approximately in the polygon bounded by I-75, Cass, elizabeth, and Grand River. You could even buildin in the moose lodge and chin-tiki into the corner of the structure. Think, arena up to the sidewalks like molson centre. The area in between this peice and Woodward could be an entertainment district to rival greektown... plus MGM will be just across GR. Plop some block-long parking decks on top of the entertainment floors and bingo-bango, Illitchville now connects FOrd Field to MGM grand! | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6563 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
My bad. The case was removed to federal court in Detroit. For those of you with PACER, it's case no. 05-72328. The parties have been bickering about whether federal court has jurisdiction. It does. A status conference is scheduled for later this month. I'll keep everyone posted as to what happens with this case. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2589 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.72.98 |
Planner_727, that idea had been mentioned in the past 6 months. It would give the arena a presence on a major street (Grand River), a freeway (Fisher), and be within easy access of MGM Grand Detroit Casino, and a "mere" 7 block amble from MotorCity Casino. We also liked the idea of doing a "Gem/Century Theatre" type move of the Moose Lodge to across Cass Ave. (Quick, someone sell it to Chuck Forbes!) The "Church of I Am" on the corner of Grand River/I-75 could be left alone. Mike Ilitch learned early on you don't mess with the churches downtown. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6565 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Now that Comerica Park and Ford Field have provided a huge amount of impetus for development and the area west and northwest of GCP is coming alive, why would you drop a single use arena in the middle of it with the Statler site replaced by a parking deck that kills the momentum towards liveable blocks??? The highest and best value use for the Statler site is a condo tower with views into Comerica Park and around the City. Let Rock go to Hudson, build/rebuild the residential with ground floor retail on GCP and let Ilitch have a changing impact on other areas.... I liked skulker's idea of building a new arena at the temporary MGM site. He had some plan that saved the cost of buying land, got MGM tax write offs, and reused an already massive parking deck..... | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2593 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.72.98 |
Itsjeff, I like that idea except for 1 thing... the destruction of a building that had nearly $200 million poured into it. I always fathomed the "Art Deco-esque" MGM temp casino making a great Magic Johnson (or any other owner) Theatre Complex. It already has that look of being a building of "amusements". I'd rather save the building AND the parking deck! But Skulker makes valid points, especially in lieu of the fact about the virtual demise of Eminent Domain. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 234 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
I think it would be cool to deck over a portion of the Lodge or I-75 for a new Olympia. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 2088 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.138.127 |
One of the best ideas I heard for where to build a new area. This makes the most sense for everyone which means it will never happen. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 2841 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.211.213 |
I love this forum for all the reasons [posts] ^^ above. Great thread. Kudos and thanks to all for the education. Save the GAR no matter what. It is so distinctive. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2610 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.124 |
Thanks Lowell, it's so nice having a thread where we educate each other without bickering and name calling. I don't think that the GAR is in any danger of demolition. In order to use the site as part of a "greater purpose", they would have to close both Cass and Adams, a scenario that just isn't gonna happen.... unless of course someone needs another "decorative sidewalk".... |
