  Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 161 Registered: 11-2005 |
This hearing in washington didn't get a lot of press coverage but is very important when looking at any future projects. There was even a local professors testimony on the new stadiums benefits to Detroit residents or lack there of. Video- http://www.c-span.org/homepage .asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Co ngress&ShowVidNum=7&Rot_Cat_CD =Congress&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&Show VidDays=365&ShowVidDesc=&Archi veDays=30 Individuals testimony- Dr. Frank Rashid Is The detroit man who testified. http://oversight.house.gov/sto ry.asp?ID=1228 | ||
Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 162 Registered: 11-2005 |
This article gives a very brief synopsis of the hearing http://futures.fxstreet.com/Fu tures/news/afx/singleNew.asp?m enu=latestnews&pv_noticia=1175 195957-50f70f08-46748 | ||
Taj920 Member Username: Taj920 Post Number: 204 Registered: 01-2004 |
Dr. Frank Rashid is one of those Tiger Stadium-huggers . The stadiums have generated tremendous economic development benefits. Downtown Detroit was a ghostown in the early 1990s. Look at it now. | ||
Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 164 Registered: 11-2005 |
Yes he was "one of those "Tiger Stadium Huggers" but his point is that while downtown thrives it is not due to the stadiums! it is due more to Campus Martius and compuware and although there are some cool businesses down there they are further downtown than the Stadiums. For the amount of money that was poured into the projects by the city the city itself does not reap the benefits. Furthermore, how many businesses that are not owned by illitch or illitch related industries are actually in they section before downtown. He chose the area and we funded for him only to have the worst budget deficit in our history. the promises that were made that it would bring thousands of new jobs and spur huge development never have come to fruition. Dr. Rashid has always been more concerned about what it will cost the city and its tax payers than if a new stadium was actually built. That stadiums are private entities and when they can build in area where they reap all of the benefits it takes away from the small business man that would traditionally reap the benefits. The money could be much better spent on a civic project than on a sports stadium which at most is functional 100 days a year and provides the city with 50 more minimal wage jobs than the old stadium would. Yes he was a stadium hugger but in my opinion he wants to see the city thrive as a whole not just Illitch village. Read the testimony don't just judge a man by one of his past ventures. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2422 Registered: 12-2004 |
I read Dr. Rashid's testimony and, quite frankly, I was disappointed. He makes unsubstantiated assumptions and ignores a lot of relevant data. For example, he repeatedly referred to the closing of 30 Detroit Public Schools in his testimony and inferred that said closings were a result of public financing for Comerica Park and/or Ford Field. This simply isn't true. Detroit Public Schools have done an incredibly poor job their students over the past 40 years, in some cases with more 90% of their students failing to meet the state's minimum standards for academic performance. This, of course, is in spite of the fact that DPS gets an above average amount of public financing. Even if all of the money that was spent on Comerica Park was spent on DPS, we still would have had to close those schools. The majority of parents care about their kids and don't want to put them in a school system that doesn't care of them as well. Dr. Rashid also ignored the economic benefits of Super Bowl XL and the 2005 MLB All-Star Game. SBXL definitely wouldn't have come to Detroit if not for public financing for Ford Field. How in the world can someone ignore the benefits of something, hype the costs and still expect to be taken seriously? | ||
Taj920 Member Username: Taj920 Post Number: 205 Registered: 01-2004 |
What do you think triggered Compuware and Campus Martius? Do you think there would have been those commitments without the stadiums? It is very doubtful. Plus, the amount of public dollars in Comerica Park and Ford Field are significantly less than other stadium projects across the country. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4291 Registered: 10-2003 |
Interesting that the sub-committee didn't call a single sports economist such as Andrew Zimbalist or the staff at Baseball Prospectus (who've covered the stadium boom quite well). Both Dr. Zimbalist and BP have been critical of public spending on sports venues and they could probably speak to the issue authority. Why wouldn't this committee call the folks with the academic background and research record to really answer the difficult questions about stadiums. How does one accurately measure the impact of events like the All-Star game, SBXL, the coming NCAA tournaments? How do new businesses such as the Detroit Beer Company and the Park Bar factor into the economic development equation? Does a downtown stadium create quality of life and civic pride/perception value and how can that value be measured? For what other purposes would have money for the stadium been spent? I don't pretend to have the answers to those questions but if I were in Congress, I would probably look to the folks that actually do even if they don't provide the feel-good photo-ops to a failed Mayor turned ineffectual Congressman running for President. http://www.dailykos.com/story/ 2007/2/23/113236/176 | ||
B24liberator Member Username: B24liberator Post Number: 84 Registered: 01-2007 |
I too, have issues with public monies being levied/spent for what amounts to subsidizing a rich man's or wealthy consortium's "bling".... But since they're here, I've got to lean towards what Fnemecek and Jelk are saying. They're here. They drawn in folks, and their money. Along with the casinos and the show venues, downtown, at least is happening. My case in point: My own family. They who would only venture into the city for matinee shows or games, and were quick to flee North or west out of town soon as darkness fell. These "fearful ones" are now attending evening events, eating late dinners, and the young'ens are staying to "party".... All the while spending money. This is something they wouldn't have considered back in say, 1985 | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2272 Registered: 10-2003 |
I don't agree that public financing of sports stadia and the like should be necessary. I think the benefits are always overstated, based on my own casual observations and reading some of the folks like Heywood Sanders. Someone will always argue that new bars and restaurants open up near sports venues. If you want bars and restaurants, then finance bars and restaurants--not stadia. Team owners are loaded with money as it is. Public financing amounts to a public intrusion into the free market. For the record, I resent that DC is spending $611 million on a new baseball stadium. Granted, the average resident doesn't have to pay a dime of that, but if the District can raise that much money for a baseball stadium, why can't they raise that money for school facilities or libraries? Now, Abe Pollin wants public money to renovate his 10 year-old arena. It's a slippery slope, but I digress. quote: True, but those people are also no longer going to Corktown. Not that there were a whole lot of bars and restaurants around Tiger Stadium, but a lot of these "new" people coming downtown are merely displaced. quote: What has changed in the past 20 years or so to cause this? Was it directly attributable to public financing of the new stadia, or perhaps something else? Just playing devil's advocate here. | ||
B24liberator Member Username: B24liberator Post Number: 85 Registered: 01-2007 |
I generally agree with you, Dan, and take no offense-- As you might gather from the first part of my post. I "hear" your outrage over that DC stadium, hell, the furor over that one has made the national news, a time or two. As to my family coming more to Detroit? It sounds lame, and laced with Hollywood, but I really think its a case of "If they build it, they will come." Whatever the case, whatever the reason, my family, and some of my friends who wouldn't give Detroit anything more than a "tsk-tsk" are slowly coming around-- Drawn by the entertainment at first, are now taking time to look about and see other things Detroit has to offer. As for the fat cats getting things subsidized by the public, for their benefit-- Yeah, that bothers me. Its rather akin to how corporations won't move their business to your state without the multi-year tax breaks and such they'll want promised beforehand. As to the numbers, and the actual cost to the individual taxpayer? I can't say. I don't have the numbers. I'm just coming from the point of the here and now, and personal observation. As to Corktown, I can only speak for my experience. Back in the day, if we caught a Tiger game, we never bar-hopped the area-- We were more likely to hit Greektown, or sadly just leave town after the game-- With our dollars unspent... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2274 Registered: 10-2003 |
^You know who I blame for this whole mess? Baltimore. LOL I tell you what, though. I go to a lot more happy hours than I do baseball games. My line of thinking says that if you want increased revenues at bars and restaurants (in the long-term), increase the number of employees and residents in the area. Any forumers here move downtown just to be close to the ballpark? | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 596 Registered: 11-2005 |
Bill McGraw wrote about it: http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20070329/BLOG07/ 70329048/1161 | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 4017 Registered: 08-2004 |
Maybe Mr. Rashid should also have asked the question has the Corktown neighborhood significantly improved since the infill housing has started to remove the blight of gap-tooth weed strewn parking lots throughout the neighborhood... | ||
Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 165 Registered: 11-2005 |
I took the Detroit Seminar with him at marygrove and he seems to agree that Corktown is better off without a stadium, and that the bars that have stayed have found ways to maintain clientele by adding shuttle services. I actually live in corktown and have talked to him in depth about the corktown situation. He probably would agree that downtown is much better than it was 7 years ago. Where the trouble lies is that much money being spent on a stadium that many of its residents can't even afford to attend. And was this the best use of those funds. If Mr Illitch used his own money to build the new stadium and not the publics i doubt there would have been much of a complaint. He even said that corktown would most likely have infill houses once they figured out what to do with the stadium. In the questioning after the testimony he even said that there should be a non vested group that should do a study to see what the best use of the money would be, and if the group found that a stadium was the best use of those funds then build a stadium. | ||
Taj920 Member Username: Taj920 Post Number: 206 Registered: 01-2004 |
The public money in the stadium projects (DDA, tourist tax) could not be earmarked for things Mr. Rashid suggests. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 378 Registered: 04-2006 |
Why should the public pay for stadiums when the players make Million of dollars? Hell for a couple of million, I'll go and swing the bat. And strike out. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 840 Registered: 06-2006 |
correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the city get more of its tax revenue from businesses and downtown workers than from residents that paying property taxes? If so, why does the article only focus on the benefits the stadiums bring to residents? | ||
Harpernottingham Member Username: Harpernottingham Post Number: 160 Registered: 04-2006 |
(Message edited by harpernottingham on April 04, 2007) | ||
Harpernottingham Member Username: Harpernottingham Post Number: 161 Registered: 04-2006 |
I like that FNemecek said "inferred," where most people would've said "implied." Properly used, "infer" means to deduce. "Imply" means to hint at or to suggest. I guess I'm implying that FNemecek is a bit of a wordsmith. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3746 Registered: 10-2003 |
First off, Jelk is the only person speaking a true voice of reason here, as usual. quote: Absolutely true...We have been down this road dozens of times. The DDA used bonds supported by tax increment financing to acquire the land that the two stadiums sit on. The DDA retains ownership of the land and the stadiums are considered leasehold improvements and after 25 (? not exactly sure than umber, could be 30) years, the stadiums will become the property of the DDA. The stadium construction costs were borne solely by the teams. Not a single public dollar was spent to build the stadiums themselves. BTW, the DDA tax increment is not a new levied tax, it is merely borrowing agianst projected revenues of taxes already in place. The infrastructure was paid for by the Wayne County Stadium Authority which raises its money through car rental and hotel taxes in Wayne County. Almost the entire brunt of this is carried by visitors. The road work was paid for by the State through MDOT dollars for infrastructure improvements through a program that improves roads for economic development. This is the same fund that paid for the new and enhanced exits for the DCX headquarters and pays for new roads to new factories and such. The Detroit deals were by far the most aggressive deals in being pro-city at the time. Please note that the combined of all the costs (land, roads, infrastructure, buildings) of the two stadiums is nearly equivalent to the public subsidy for the Nationals new stadium. So from a perspective of HOW public tax dollars were utilized, Detroit was exceptionally prudent and drove a remarkably good deal. As to whether ANY public dollars should be used for a business like MLB, why should they be treated any differently than any other private for profit business. Didn't everyone get their panties in a bunch saying what the City should do to lure Rock? How are the Tigers any different? If you find public expenditure for improved roads around Compuware fine, then you can't complain about the Tigers or the Lions unless the percentage of subsidy is out of scale, which it clearly wasn't. If you object to ANY public subsidy of any private entity, that is a completely separate discussion. If you can provide sufficient rationale against any and all subsidies, I can respect that. I won't agree with you, but I'll respect it. If you are all happy that Compuware is here and not Farmington, but resent subsidy to teh stadiums, I have no respect for you because you have an illogical and flawed argument. And here is where I have a problem with the disingenuous and deliberately misleading testimony provided. A key fact that Mr. Rashid often omits (and make no mistake, this is still sour grapes for closing Tiger Stadium) is that public subsidy would have been necessary to rehab Tiger Stadium as well. Would he have objected to that? I don't think so. IF he is opposed to all public subsidy of stadiums, he had to be prepared to lose Tiger Stadium and the Tigers to a greenfield site outside of Detroit. (And since when does a doctorate in American Literature qualify one as an "expert witness" in economic development?) http://www.marygrove.edu/facul ty/Frank_Rashid/ | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4304 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Maybe so but by your logic the exchange between John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman about In Search of Lost Time before the House Select Committee on Literature and Culture in 1987 would have never taken place. Who knew a discussion of Proust could be so electric? I even saved my Weekly Reader from the third grade with the article about that thrilling debate about the seminal literary work of the 20th century by two of our nation's finest economists. (Message edited by jelk on April 04, 2007) | ||
Tegwor Member Username: Tegwor Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2007 |
Most of those posting on this topic apparently are unaware that there is authoritative research on the effect of major "marquis" developments including sports stadiums on economic development. The Urban Land Institute did a study almost ten years ago now, which studies three hundred or so such developments. To simplify a bit, what they concluded was that such developments did not create new economic activity, but in a growing economy they could move development from one location to another. In other words, sports stadiums don't cause people to spend more on food and drink than they otherwise might,but it might cause them to spend it closer to the stadium. Whether moving the purchase of hamburgers from Livonia or Royal Oak to downtown Detroit is worth 400 Million Dollars is a topic on which people can take whatever position they want. The argument about the details of who paid for what is specious. The "tourist tax" for "infrastructure" at Ford Field represents money that could have been spent for other purposes. There is no magic wand that allows money to be raised for NFL Football teams only, but not for other purposes. The notion that the tax is "mostly born by outsiders" ignores the fact that the money could be spent for other purposes, used instead of taxes levied on residents and local businesses. If it is a good idea to export a tax burden, it is a good idea to use it to replace locally imposed taxes. The same is true of DDA bonds or other types of financing. The most vivid example is the lack of an appropriate home for the International Auto Show, which clearly has a far greater impact on Detroit and Michigan than either sports stadium. The direct cost in the so-called "Ficano" plan for redeveloping Cobo Hall to meet the needs of the Auto Show is less than the total public subsidy for these two stadiums; and we seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in coming up with the money. Would that not have been a far better expenditure of the "tourist tax" and the "infrastructure" funds? In the last analysis, money is money, regardless of which pocket it comes out of. As to Compuware and Campus Martius, the writer ignores the most significant economic event in the history of downtown Detroit in half a century, the movement of General Motors into the Renaissance Center. I know from personal experience with the higher levels of Compuware that GM's move had far greater impact on Compuware's move downtown than either stadium. Mr. Karmanos, the CEO of Compuware, and Mr. Ilitch are rivals, not close friends. I doubt that the fact that Comerica was nearby had any positive effect on Compuware's decision whatsoever. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3747 Registered: 10-2003 |
Tegwor: Those are all good points, thanks for elevating the debate. You may also be aware of work done by the Urban Institute which examined land reuse patterns in dis-invested central cities. They basic question was, what do cities do with large tracts of vacant land after the office users leave for edge cities and what policies / pursuits are successful, knowing full well that the city will never return to its past office use levels? What they found is that single shot marquis projects don't help. What they did find is that cities that pursued other specific and coordinated re-uses for their vacant land, such as regional entertainment centers fared much better than those that just did a single silver bullet project. The Detroit stadiums are part of the solution for downtown as part of the entertainment destination. Recall the DDA also heavily subsidized the renovation of the Opera House and facilitated the move of the Gem / Century. Add in the casinos and the Detroit CBD has a new use other than fallow land for office that will never return. The entertainment portion of the redevelopment has been layered in with new residential development as the other strategy for re-use of the land. Spreading across two types of reuse allows for faster absorption of land and diversifies the economic base. They also provide reinforcing markets. New restaurants built to serve the entertainment crowds are supported during the week by residents. As more re built, it provides more impetus for new residents to move downtown. As more folks move downtown, it provides more customer base for more restuarants which in turn helps draw more folks looking for entertainment into the downtown. My point is that the do nothing option with the stadium land would have not helped the City reuse the vacant land, which would still be acting as a drag on the CBD and inhibiting residential redevelopment. You are correct in noting the opportunity costs of the investment into the stadia. However, I don't think the argument of the funding sources is specious. The Wayne County Stadium Authority did have magic wand of sorts, given to it by voters. It was authorized to collect a new and specific tax for a specific and limited purpose, as approved by the voting citizens of Wayne County. The tax burden imposed by this policy supported by voters largely DOES export the tax burden to visitors...a portion (albeit small) of whom are coming to Detroit for the specific purpose of seeing the sports teams, and well the teams themselves. The implied either / or choice between Cobo or Stadiums is false one. The Stadium Authority tax in no way precludes the the expansion of Cobo or new sources being created. Keep in mind the timing of the projects. The WCSA vote was more than ten years ago when the last freshen on Cobo was about 12 years old. At that time there was no need for an expanded Cobo and Cobo was already being paid for by liquor tax levied in three counties, a tax still in effect. There has been no lack of will from the City or Wanye County on the Cobo issue, there has been active blocking by other regional stakeholders like Oakland County who are leery of more money for Cobo while they are still paying off the last renovation. Not quite the simple matter you imply it to be. On a side note, The Ferchill Group made it fortune in the 1980s and 1990s by building new midmarket hotels in close proximity to new stadiums around the country. As soon as a deal for a new stadium was sniffed in the air, TFG began searching for land near the stadium and banged up a hotel. Always a successful formula. They had no desire to be in Detroit until the stadium deals were announced and within a few short years built Detroit first new hotel in 18 years. The much better than projected performance of the hotel caused them to re-evaluate the market...I think we all know where that re-evaluation took them. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4306 Registered: 10-2003 |
Tegwor, you don't happen to know a guy named Joe Jaros do you? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3749 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The difference is that economists are some of the most brilliant and well rounded people around. Economists look at not only hard data and numbers but also MUST be students of the human mind in order to be effective - a true economist is also a sociologist, psychologist, philosopher, anthropologist and historian as well. Economists typically have the widest and deepest cores of knowledge of any discipline. English majors tend to be far far more limited than economists in their breadth of understanding other disciplines. I can't believe you would compare an English major with an economist. | ||
Tegwor Member Username: Tegwor Post Number: 2 Registered: 04-2007 |
Jelk: No, I don't recognize the name Joe Jeros Sjulker: I think your assumption of a "multi-layered entertainment strategy" for downtown smacks of "post hoc logic". That is, the activities came before the strategy, and the strategy has been stated to fit the facts. In point of fact, the entertainment strategy occurred when, much to every one's surprise, the Casino Initiative passed statewide. That is what created the entertainment district, not the stadiums. In fact, if Detroit truly wanted an entertainment district, and wanted to leverage it off the casinos, it would have wanted the stadiums somewhere else. Comerica Park produces only 81 dates a year, plus playoffs, if they occur. Ford field is usually good for about fifteen. the rest of the time they are very large pieces of urban sculpture. Comrtica Psrk takes up an enormous amount of land. Indeed it was designed to take up extensive land, I assume because of the amount of blight the City wanted to remove at one fell swoop. The problem is that as a result there is not natural interaction between stadium event attendees and the rest of the City. Unfortunately much of Detroit development has become a series of fortresses; casinos, the Renaissance Center and Comerica, all of which are designed to keep people (and their dollars) inside, rather than inviting them to the rest of the city. The notable exceptions are Greektown Casino, the Compuware Building, and Ford Field. And Ford Field tried; it's just that the attempted redevelopment of the old Hudson's warehouse as a part of that project has not worked out well.Hopefully the positive experiences at Compuware and Greektown, will get major developers in Detroit beyond the siege mentality, and the city will start to function more the way a healthy city can. Ironically, at the beginning of the Archer Administration the proponents of keeping the Tigers in Tiger Stadium suggested that the most appropriate use for the land across from the Fox Theater, where Comeirca Park now sits, would be a replacement for Joe Louis Arena. Arenas do fit into entertainment strategies, because the good ones (Joe Louis ins't a good one) generate over 200 days a year of use. And because of their smaller size, they do integrate much better with other entertainment venues than do stadiums. Check out TD Northbank Center in Boston or Madison Square Garden in New York as examples. That would have been a good way to get Detroit development out of the siege mentality, but no. The Ilitches were fixated on their stadium. Now there is a clear need to do something about JLA, and I doubt that the state of the county will be able to come up with another "magic wand", especially with the need for a new Cobo as a higher priority. The argument about who pays taxes and where they go is described by economists as the "final incidence" debate; in other words, who really ultimately bears the burden of a tax? The legislature did not really hand Wayne County a "magic wand" with the "tourist tax". If that money is easily taxed without pain, which hotel owners would vehemently debate, it would be available for other things. Does anyone seriously doubt that the legislature would have been equally as willing to let the voters vote on such a tax for a new Cobo for the auto show? I don't mean to suggest that it was an "either-or" decision at the time the tourist tax was enacted, but wasting large sums of government money is *never* a good idea. And it is beyond argument that if we hadn't spent it then, it would be available now. So we now stand in jeopardy of either submitting to a Billion Dollar boondoggle in order to raise 250 Million Dollars to expand Cobo, or having the Auto Show leave. If we had our 400 Million back, neither would be necessary. In addition there is the issue of fundamental fairness. The "tourist tax" raises about 28 Million Dollars a year. That's about 3.5 Million for each regular season home game. (Exhibition games don't count; does anybody think anyone would go if they didn't have to buy the tickets to in order to get season tickets? Ford Field holds about 64,000 people for football. That means that for each person who is there, Wayne County is paying a subsidy of fifty=five to sixty dollars a ticket, which happens to be about the cost of the great majority of Ford Field seats for Lions games. So for every person who buys a seat for the Lions at Ford field, there are taxpayers paying half the cost. In the last analysis, those stadiums are there, and the bills are there to pay. The real purpose of the discussion now is to help us do better when these issues arise again, and they will. The era of knee-jerk reaction to sports teams threats and blandishments and outrageous promises seems to be over. Let's hope Detroit in the future is smart enough to be part of that positive trend. | ||
Lvnthed Member Username: Lvnthed Post Number: 88 Registered: 03-2007 |
Tegwor, One problem we have is; if we don't, someone other than us will. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 838 Registered: 10-2003 |
This is a pretty good thread, so I will throw in my $.02. quote: DaninDC, I moved to downtown Detroit in 1997, and the plans for Comerica Park and downtown casinos were the biggest factors in my decision to make the move. You can do a cost-benefit analysis of the economic impact from building one new sports stadium or casino, but that doesn't tell you anything about the economic impact of clustering numerous sports stadia and casinos to expand an existing downtown theatre/entertainment district. -------------- The construction of Soaring Eagle Casino and the Pontiac Silverdome didn't do much to promote spin-off development in Mt. Pleasant and Pontiac, but the construction of Ford Field, Comerica Park, and the three Detroit casinos has ignited the biggest downtown development boom in forty years. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 206 Registered: 11-2006 |
I'm going to agree with ErikD and disagree with DaninDC. CoPa, Ford Field, etc. are the reasons many folks even come to downtown Detroit. If pro sports would have moved out of downtown, downtown Detroit would be completely dead. I also believe the renaissance in Downtown has led to the renaissance in Mid-town and makes it even more possible for WSU to do what they are doing furthering their growth and integration into Midtown. CoPa, FF, etc. are CAUSES and other developments the EFFECT. Without the cause, there would be no effect. RE: D.C. the new Nationals baseball stadium (and Verizon Center in the 90s) are two of the BEST things ever to happen to D.C. Verizon Center led to the development of the old downtown and the Nationals Stadium is leading a billions (with a 's') building splurge near the new stadium. Developers are now paying 50M for a city block in an area which was considered waste land like many blocks in Detroit. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 207 Registered: 11-2006 |
Folks: When one considers these studies one need to remember they are aggregates - a summation of individual cases. One needs to disaggregate - look at case-by-base. I see CoPa as a great success. I see the coming Washington Nationals new park as a great success. I see Camden Yards in Balto as a great success. I see F.F. as a great success. I see the P. Silverdome as a great failure. I see (as did DaninDC) the FedEx stadium as a failure. I see D.C.'s Verizon Center as a great success. I couldn't care less about that facility out in Auburn Hills. I'd suspect a new arena behind the Fox would be a great success. I see D.C.'s new convention center as a failure. I see a high risk of failure for a new convention center in Detroit. These are the cities I'm most familiar. Thee is NO SINGLE answer. It depends on how WISELY EACH INDIVIDUAL decision was made. Ever since I've been on this forum, I firmly believe that the next important development story for Detroit is a new hockey arena behind the Fox. Completing Casinos is a major developement story of '07 and '08. and I'd guess the arena would be '09. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 208 Registered: 11-2006 |
To borrow someone's thought, if there is no new hockey arena behind the Fox that area might take DECADES to develop. There is no momentum there now. IF an arena is built there maybe 25 years could be shortened to 5 - 10. That is a purpose of smart development - to jump start other development. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11467 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: At the time, yes, that was exactly my initial reason for moving downtown. I already had Lions season tickets from their days at the Silverdome, and had also been attending a few dozen Tiger games during that year I lived in Dearborn. I grew tired of driving, parking, and dealing with traffic to attend these events, so moving close enough to walk to the stadiums played a key role in my decision. In regards to your going to a lot more happy hours than baseball games, in Detroit, why do you think many of the bars exist? I could probably list close to a to a dozen bars in the close area surrounding the stadiums that exist simply because the stadiums came into existence. The financing has already more than sufficiently been covered on here, and I have no problem with the means in which the stadiums were built, nor with their financing. The number of people in which both have attracted to the city since they were built, combined with the revenue by the many events, is surpassed by no corporation in this region. Regardless of the economic impact, let's not forgot just how much the All Star Game, Super Bowl, and World Series have changed peoples' perspectives from across the globe. How can you place a price on that? Perhaps Detroit's situation, it's continued poor reputation by many, is unlike most other major cities. Though that is a struggle in which this city has to deal with, and it is a reputation that I feel has significantly improved since the stadiums were built. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4315 Registered: 10-2003 |
What's interesting is that every argument both pro and con about building new stadiums is based on anecdotal evidence. Camden Yards is almost 15 years, there is plenty of economic data to be analyzed about the impact of a new ballpark. My problem with the Kucinich hearing is that he chose to ignore exactly the people who have studied the economics of new ballparks. Neil deMause's chapter about stadiums in Baseball Between the Numbers published last year by Baseball Prospectus probably had more useful information, in any given paragraph, about the economics of ballparks then Kucinich's show hearing and this thread put together. Tegwor, I thought your handle may have been a slight nod to TEGWAR (the exciting game without any rules) from Mark Harris' Bang The Drum Slowly. Oh well. Great book by the way. TEGWAR does kind of explain how the economics of stadiums are debated as well | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2323 Registered: 10-2003 |
A couple random comments: RE: Verizon Center--the opening of that building merely forced out many existing locally-owned businesses, and replaced them with chains after the rents were increased 5/6-fold. Chinatown has become "Disney China". Most of the Chinese who lived in that neighborhood have since relocated to Maryland. But hey, you can get Starbucks after having dinner at Ruby Tuesday. Certainly, the redevelopment in the rest of the city (or even the rest of the downtown) cannot be attributed to the arena. RE: the Nationals' stadium--the area had already started to redevelop. New buildings were under construction and redevelopment years before the team committed to relocating from Montreal. This was driven more by the federal government's desire to find cheaper office space away from the downtown core--not the baseball stadium. I like the design of the new park, and it will certainly bring the attendant bars and restaurants with it. Again, if bars and restaurants are the ultimate goal, it's cheaper to invest money directly into bars and restaurants. The DC convention center is a failure only to the people who expected it to magically create development. Of course, it loses money, just like most convention facilities do. Camden Yards and Comerica Park, for all of their "success", are still surrounded by acres of asphalt. I don't see this as an improvement in the urban fabric. Downtown Baltimore is still relatively dead. It's very simplistic to observe new development, ignore all sorts of complicated, interrelated economic factors, and pin the new construction on simply building a stadium. Frankly, if DC wanted to generate economic development, I think the $611 million is better spent on expanding the rail transit system. Tony Williams just had a hard-on for baseball, though. Do you build a new stadium for every neighborhood you want to revitalize? | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 213 Registered: 11-2006 |
Dan, I'll respond re: Nationals stadium rather then go point by point and do each of your points. You are correct that some development (e.g., DOT) had begun in the area but as some excellent articles in the Wash Post show, development literally exploded in that area after plans were launched for the stadium. I remember the nice graph showing a nice rise and then boom - the stadium's plans - and that area explodes with developement: office space, condos, apartment, eat and drink, etc. etc. Simply unbelievable. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 481 Registered: 07-2006 |
Dan, most of those 'acres of asphalt' surrounding Comerica is owned by ilitch anyways, and most of that is a likely location for a new arena. of course he isn't going to sell it for new development - he wants it himself. I can't blame him. The one exception would be the land along woodward, which not too long ago was announced is available for development. Given Ilitch's investment in the area, I suspect he'll be picky about what goes in there, so i expect it to be a while before anything is built. By no means, would I assume that means the parks are a failure. I suspect your idea of development is new construction, since you consistently complain about the acres of parking lot that have remained downtown. What you apparently fail to account for, is the huge number of vacant buildings downtown that will fill up with small businesses before new construction takes place on anything other than a corporate headquarters, casino, or new arena. How many businesses have opened up since comerica park opened? how many would have otherwise eventually failed if not for the crowds from the games? While I am sure your question regarding a stadium was little more than an ignorant, condescending insult to those you disagree with you, in case you really think even one person in the world believes a stadium is the answer to every problem: each neighborhood needs its own character and businesses, and what will encourage businesses in one area will destroy another neighborhood entirely. Throw a stadium into a primarily residential area, with little else going on, and you'll end up with homes torn down for parking, and an exodus of residents, probably destroying what little business may have been left, except for parking lot operators, because most of that previous business would have been neighborhood commercial, and not the kind that would benefit from a stadium at all. Visitors get out as quickly as they can, because they see no reason to stay in an area full of vacant lots, and few businesses manage to gain any kind of foothold. This DIDN'T happen downtown, because there were already businesses in place, and buildings that were not torn down that could hold more businesses. With the shift of downtown from a purely business center towards more of an entertainment center (an over-simplification, i know), stadiums fit in perfectly with this, particularly with the casinos coming in at the same time. Add the existing entertainment options already downtown, and a number of new ones that have come in since the stadiums, and I really feel you have a hard time proving it's been a failure, Dan. The stadiums didn't create any kind of revival downtown by themselves, but they certainly are an important part of it. Maybe they aren't working in DC, i don't know, and won't pretend to. that doesn't mean that they haven't worked here, where they have helped reintroduce thousands of suburbanites to a downtown they otherwise wouldn't have ventured anywhere near - me being one of them. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 214 Registered: 11-2006 |
Quote: "The stadiums didn't create any kind of revival downtown by themselves, but they certainly are an important part of it. Maybe they aren't working in DC, i don't know, and won't pretend to." 1). DaninDC is the only person I know of who thinks the Verizon Center isn't a success. Most consider it a HUGE success. 2). I'll repeat a theme I've tried to make on this forum: Most 'downtown' areas like Detroit's has many, many empty or underutlized blocks. Anything (be it a stadium, arena, hotel, casino, etc.) which 'eats up' one or more of those blocks with quality development is a good thing. We are not talking about tearing down productive buildings for another use which some may disagree. In D.C., the new stadium is I believe 20+ acres. I believe the number of people who lived in that parcel was less then 10 (might have been several houses which were restored). Mostly light industrial and some 'adult entertainment' establishments which are now out of business. My cost/benefit analysis on the D.C. stadium is 100% positive for the stadium. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2325 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: That depends how you define "success". If by "success" you mean nearly complete elimination of an existing ethnic community, then yes, it has been incredibly successful. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 215 Registered: 11-2006 |
Dan, Interesting thought and it pertains to ALL development (unless we are talking about building on surface parking lots). Yes, some displacements either direct or indirect (as the price of land and housing increase some can not afford the 'new' price) does occur. But I hope this doesn't become the reason to start building stadia, arena, and entertainment venues out in the boonies where the only displacement is likely to be wild animals. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2327 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: No, I agree with you--this is why places like the Silverdome and FedEx Field are unqualified disasters. I just think that massive public subsidy for these structures is misguided. As was pointed out above by Scottr, it's not practical to use such massive investments as stadia to redevelop largely residential neighborhoods. So obviously, there are redevelopment strategies that exist that do not involve shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars for billionaire team owners. Why are these strategies not used downtown? The key to a healthy urban environment is a diverse array of uses within a densely-populated area. Detroit has taken an almost suburban approach to this, by developing the "entertainment district" between Grand Circus and I-75--complete with ample amounts of surface parking lot. Segregated land usage is not a sustainable model. All you have to do is go to South Philly, and see the wasteland created by the "Sports Complex", which is little more than the several stadia and their associated parking. Of course, Center City has managed to hum along just fine without massively subsidized stadia. I simply don't agree with the assertion that publicly financed stadia are as necessary for Detroit to succeed as some would like to believe. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 843 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Dan, What are you talking about??? Nobody is saying that sports stadia are necessary for Detroit to succeed. Nobody has claimed that new sports stadia will "save" Detroit. I don't know what gave you this impression, but it simply isn't true. quote: These redevelopment strategies ARE used downtown (and around the rest of the city) all the time. From historic tax credits for rehab projects, like the Book Cadillac, to property tax credits for new housing, like the Brush Park condos, to tax breaks for relocating companies, like Compuware, to the facade improvement grants used to improve dozens of downtown buildings, there has been a push to redevelop the city on many fronts, not just new stadium construction. | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 305 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thanks to each poster on this thread. This has been one of the most informative threads lately. My comment may be a little off the topic in a way. The best place for a new arena is not behind the Fox Theater. The area north of I75 and west of Woodward is superior because it helps tie a great existing entertainment venue to the "entertainment district". Specifically Masonic temple a great venue that is under used. The Max Fisher would be more connected too. The lack of critical mass of development behind the fox is artificial. This area will be developed by Olympia when the arena question has been answered. If Cobo hall convention center was moved to the north of I75 location that would change my thinking. As things stand now the area behind fox should be mid rise residential. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 221 Registered: 11-2006 |
Mark, I think an arena between the Fox would spur residential development north of 75. (I think others have also made this point) It wouldn't extend the 'entertainment' district to the Masonic, but I believe it would lead to some nice in-fill development. | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 307 Registered: 12-2004 |
Yup Emu_steve that point has been made all I have is an opinion (can't buy an arena myself) My belief is still the same the north of 75 space should be entertainment or mixed use. A pure residential development would isolate Masonic and to a lesser extent the Max | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2336 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Then why has the City of Detroit put a higher priority on building stadia and casinos than rehabilitating neighborhood retail corridors, or improving its public transit system? | ||
Schulzte1 Member Username: Schulzte1 Post Number: 81 Registered: 01-2007 |
I think the assumption that a new Detroit Red Wings Arena will be publicly funded is presumptuous. The government will chip in with certain development costs such as tearing down abandon buildings, but Mr. Ilitch is likely going to pay for the construction of the building itself. The city, county, and state government aren't in a good position to fund this project, and Mr. Ilitch I'm sure would like to own the new building and has the money to build it. He also has no leverage in trying to procure government money; everyone knows the Wings aren't going anywhere, he won't move them out of downtown. So I think the vast majority of a new arena would be privately funded, which is good, as long as you can deal with hearing "Welcome to cheapautoparts.com arena, home of the Detroit Red Wings". Dan in DC, I can see why you would be opposed your local government dropping $600 million into a stadium. That is insane. I don't know why a ballpark should cost that much. However, that facts on the ground in Detroit are in disagreement with your opinion. The investment in stadiums in Detroit, while perhaps not the most economically sound way, has spurred significant growth in the immediate area that never would have otherwise happened. This growth would not have occurred had the Tigers stayed at an unrenovated Tiger Stadium or the Lions stayed at the Silverdome. I loved Tiger Stadium, but there wasn't much going on development wise in that area at the time. www.newolympia.blogspot.com | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 222 Registered: 11-2006 |
Maybe Dan can help me, but supposedly ZERO dollars for the D.C. stadium is coming from the taxpayers. The big sources of revenue are a tax on 'big businesses' (they agreed to tax themselves) and taxes on tickets, concessions, etc. I believe the tax on tickets, concessions, etc. might be about 10M / year. The big $ is the 'big business tax' which was created to fund the stadium. The argument was: Even if the stadium were not built there wouldn't be any additional money for schools, etc. This is a dedicated source of funds for a particular purpose. If the stadium would not have been built the source of funds would not exist or have been created. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2338 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ironically enough, I just returned from my first visit to the Nationals' stadium. Yay for me. Emu Steve, you are on-track. While there isn't a tax being levied on individual taxpayers, nor is any money coming from the District's General Fund, all of the monies are, in fact, public dollars. Most of the funding is coming from the "large business tax", levied on businesses with over $1 million in annual gross receipts. The taxes on tickets and concessions, lease payments on the land, and revenues from parking are all public monies, in that they are being collected and disbursed by the District government. The District is fronting the money, and is recouping its expenses through these means. Congress kicked in $20 million or something like that to expand the Navy Yard Metro station. While, like skulker argues, you wouldn't be able to just take this money and use it for something else, the large business tax, for example, could be used to upgrade public transportation or fix potholes. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 223 Registered: 11-2006 |
Dan, We agree on the details, etc. etc. Where we disagree, is on the "Large business tax". My take is that the stadium is the ONLY purpose that they'd self-tax themselves. That is my conjecture. We'll never really know. I think the residents of D.C. got themselves a stadium for pennies on the dollar. Great deal for D.C., the Nationals, etc. etc. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2339 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I'm pretty sure they'd pony up to build more subway lines. Schools are a different story.... I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised at the area around the new ballpark. Granted, the immediate environs were still scrappy--mostly abandoned small buildings, sleazy car-repair places, and impromptu junkyards. I was impressed by the number of office buildings constructed in the corridor in the past few years. And for a government building, the DOT HQ actually looks *nice* from the outside! There was even a new Courtyard Marriott, and an adjacent condo building, just 1/2 mile from the new stadium. That whole neighborhood is one giant construction site right now. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 224 Registered: 11-2006 |
Dan, the old expression, "You ain't seen nothing yet." In 12 months the activity will probably be double what it is now. Absolutely incredible | ||
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez Post Number: 220 Registered: 12-2006 |
Dan--where in DC do you live? and for how long? I used to spend a lot of time there....great city. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2342 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Been living here for six years--on Capitol Hill for the past year and a half. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3765 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Wow! Awesome! Just awesome! Comerica Park sucks...it surrounded by things like two historic churches, the Fox Theater, Fillmore (nee State) Theater, Elwood Grill, Gem and Century Theater, DAC, the Detroit Opera House, Ford Field, the new PWC office building and a bunch of bars and restaurants like Proof, Park Bar, Centaur, Town Pump, Beer Company, Small Plates, Hockeytown, Chelis, some halfmoon shaped park and that old building that some folks live in,...Kales I think its called?...something like that...and from what I understand thare might be two more of those restaurant / bar type things opening up soon...then theres the dust from all that housing being built to the north... Man, I wish I could go to a stadium surrounded mostly abandoned small buildings, sleazy car-repair places, and impromptu junkyards instead. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 225 Registered: 11-2006 |
www.jdland.com/dc is the website of a super, super dedicated Washington Post webmaster (or whatever) who has the most complete website I've ever seen for a neighborhood. If anyone is interested in seeing how D.C. is turning around (in large part, but not exclusively, because of the new stadium) the once desolate south of the Capitol Hill neighborhood, this is it. Unless an urban theorist can show me a more dramatic case, I believe this is one of the most impressive urban renewals in American history. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2343 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You forgot the parking garages and the surface lots. Emu_Steve, the only work that has happened in the area of the DC ballpark are projects that have been in the works for several years. The only work related to the stadium so far is the expansion of the Metro station. | ||
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez Post Number: 226 Registered: 12-2006 |
CapitolHill, eh? Order me up a couple pitchers of Natty Bo at the Tune Inn, as well as a side of interns. thx....no....actually, no thanks. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 844 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Dan, Your anti-stadium/casino bias has caused you to come to some errant conclusions. The construction of stadia and casinos doesn't mean that the city has prioritized these projects over other developments. The city has expended much effort to build new retail space, and lure new retailers into city neighborhoods. There has been some success on this front, especially along East Jefferson, but the vast majority of retailers courted by the city have refused to open stores in Detroit. The city has been trying to lure retailers for years, only to be rebuffed by most of them. Unlike the vast majority of retailers, who constantly turn down opportunities to open stores in Detroit, the Ilitches and Fords actually wanted to build new stadiums in Detroit. The same goes for the casinos. Do you think that Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, The Gap, Whole Foods, or Meijer would have opened stores in Detroit if the Tigers and Lions had built their new stadiums in northern Oakland County? Contrary to your opinion, Detroit stadium/casino developments did not happen INSTEAD of retail or transit developments. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 229 Registered: 11-2006 |
"Emu_Steve, the only work that has happened in the area of the DC ballpark are projects that have been in the works for several years. The only work related to the stadium so far is the expansion of the Metro station." Dan, one would have to do a parcel by parcel analysis. some of the stuff, e.g., the Marriott and co-op, and a few others were built as the DOT hdqtrs building was going up. Most of the sales of 'underutilized' (understatement of the year) properties for big bucks occurred after the stadium plans were announced. There are an incredible number of building projects which are to break ground this year or next. I and most I know attribute this to the stadium not the DOT hdqtrs building. The Wash. Post has done articles with line graphs showing the effect on that area after the stadium was announced. I've been watching it going back about 2 years. I've been in that area many times (and maybe again today) looking at the development. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 230 Registered: 11-2006 |
Actually, Dan, I just realized that you made my point for me. Things which were completed in the last couple years are B.S. (before stadium). There wasn't a lot of non-governmental buildings built. Some, yes; a California land rush, no. Things which are in the pipeline and ground broken this year and next are A.S. (anno stadia - like 'in the year of the stadium') these all occurred after the stadium was approved by the D.C. Council. My only disappointment having followed that area closely for two years, is that more isn't being done to get a lot more development in the area done by April '08, the opening of the stadium. Folks will see a lot of cranes while walking near the stadium. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 289 Registered: 10-2005 |
danndc--"Downtown Baltimore is still relatively dead." -----Emu--while in DC today, perhaps take a train up to Baltimore to see if Dan's statement is accurate! | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 231 Registered: 11-2006 |
don't need to. ;-) I was in downtown Balto Tuesday nite for the Tigs' game!! While up there I saw two big buildings going up opposite the O's stadium. One is a hotel and the other luxury apartments. Without Orioles Park at Camden Yards both of those plots of land would be nothingness (er, surface parking). | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2345 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: So imagine how exciting that area is the other 284 days (78%) of the year, especially during the workday. Every time I go to Bawlamer, I ask myself, "Where are all the people?" Mind you, Baltimore has had 15 years to "attract" development with its baseball stadium. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 291 Registered: 10-2005 |
Dan--this is a Detroit forum and I really don't want to get into details about Baltimore. However, if you fail to recognize the significant growth that has occured here, you are either living in a bubble or ignorant. Agreed, it is not as vibrant as DC; but from the opinions of my numerous former-DC neighbors, it has it's charm. Perhaps if you spent some significant time here or even in Detroit, you may realize that your generalizations are unfounded and frankly, becoming old. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2346 Registered: 10-2003 |
^Did I write anything that was incorrect? I don't post here to make anyone feel cheerful and happy. I post my observations and thoughts. You don't have to like what I think or write. Instead of whining, why don't you rebut? | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 232 Registered: 11-2006 |
Dan, I agree that Orioles Park and the FB stadium are at the edge of Balto's downtown and don't add as much CoPa, FF do and a new hockey arena would to Detroit. Detroit has the potential to have a World Series game, Lions' FB game, Wings hockey game, etc (yes, including other things like casinos and arts) going on the same day or weekend. All walking distance from each other. Almost scary. Very different cities - Detroit and Balto. BTW, wouldn't that be one of the worst traffic jams in the history of any big city??? That might lead to a cry for more public transportation! | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2347 Registered: 10-2003 |
Emu_Steve, I don't disagree. I just think that there is a disproportionate amount of investment (especially public $), hype, hope, and effort put into new sports stadia and convention centers. And I don't mean this just for Detroit, but for all cities, including my own. Yes, these facilities are sources of pride, and it's great to watch a ballgame in a pleasant environment. For the amount of investment required, though, these buildings sit unused a vast majority of the time, all the while creating massive superblocks that disrupt human-scale activity. I think it's pretentious, at best, to think that you can hinge a serious redevelopment strategy on heavily subsidized and underused single-use buildings. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3769 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Too bad you aren't making direct observations about Detroit, only misinformed generalizations from afar. Too bad you thoughts are regimented and dismissive of anybody or any place that does not match up to what your narrow and specific expectations are for a city and for a life style. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 292 Registered: 10-2005 |
^Did I write anything that was incorrect? I don't post here to make anyone feel cheerful and happy. I post my observations and thoughts. You don't have to like what I think or write. Instead of whining, why don't you rebut? I am not whining. I am simply trying to inform you that your observations are incorrect. As a resident of Baltimore for the past 20 years, I have witnessed significant growth from a town that was basically a joke along the eastern seaboard to a city that is now courting business and new residents from Boston to DC. Does Baltimore have unresolved issues? Yes. Does it have the pedestrian flow of other east coast cities? No. But to be honest, when you are not hiding out in Capital Hill, take a walk around downtown DC at night on a weekday. Hmmmmmm--definitely not NYC or Boston. That's for sure. I can only say that there are many folks moving to Baltimore City from DC and they must be moving here for a reason. Now enough of this Baltimore-DC nonsense. This is a Detroit forum and I really did not want to hijack it with other issues. I will end this by saying that in all sincerity, many of your posts seem like whining to me and perhaps that is why you so quickly referred to that emotion from my initial entry. Really, the only reason why I responded at all is because so much of what you say can be incorrect and I felt obliged to respond. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2348 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Sorry. Creating regimented theme parks in a once-great downtown isn't my idea of good city-building. But hey, that's why you're in Detroit, and that's why I'm here. | ||
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez Post Number: 227 Registered: 12-2006 |
Dan....next time in b-more be sure to visit "the Block." It's an old time theme park, to be sure. a real classic. But as some others have noted, your observations on baltimore are pretty much off the mark. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2349 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: But I'm the one who generalizes.... | ||
Detroitsuperfly Member Username: Detroitsuperfly Post Number: 19 Registered: 07-2005 |
What amazes me is that people are willing to support any kind of public financing of sports arenas and such, but scream and cry when public schools need to be funded exponentially more. Does education not increase potential for income? Does increased income not also increase the tax base? Funding for stadiums is the good old "trickle down effect", which rarely benefits anyone other than the uber rich. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 233 Registered: 11-2006 |
This thread, and some like it, venture off to other cities for 'case studies' of the topic at hand. (public financing of stadia is a topic which applies to almost all large American cities). I try to keep what I might say about another city relevant to Detroit and try to draw comparisons. I want to repeat a statement I made a long time ago on this forum: Assuming the "Foxtown" Arena gets built, Detroit will have a sports and entertainment mecca better then any other American city (F.F., CoPa, and a new hockey arena all within a short walk along with the Fox, Opera House, Greektown Casino, etc.). I don't believe anyone was able to truly rebut this statement. Detroit should be proud of itself for accomplishing so much in the sports and entertainment area. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 845 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dan, Your hypocrisy on this subject is truly astounding. You constantly slam Detroit for building new stadiums for our NFL and MLB teams, and your most recent post really stands out as a perfect example of this hypocrisy. After a number of people pointed out the valid benefits of building new stadia for Detroit's MLB and NFL teams, you shot back with this remarkably ignorant response: quote: Are you freaking serious? Do you recognize the contradictions in your assertions? Your sanctimonious anti-Detroit-stadium attitude is bullshit. You are throwing stones from a glass house. According to you, building new stadiums for the NFL and MLB teams in Detroit is just "creating regimented theme parks", and Detroiters are just a bunch of ignorant fools letting it happen. Of course, building new stadiums for the NFL and MLB teams in Washington DC is totally different than building new stadia in Detroit... quote: | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2350 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Actually, it is incredibly different. If you had any recognition of nuance, you would understand why. Detroit is pinning the entire redevelopment of its downtown on a strictly entertainment-based strategy of stadia, casinos, and Big Events. The City is intentionally creating an entertainment zone, designed to do little more than lure dollars out of the pockets of suburban visitors, and put public money into the hands of billionaire Mike Ilitch. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1185 Registered: 04-2006 |
"Detroit is pinning the entire redevelopment of its downtown on a strictly entertainment-based strategy of stadia, casinos, and Big Events." Dan, while there has been huge investments in the stadiums and the casinos, you can't ignore: - Lots of new housing, - Riverfront walk, - Compuware and other additions/renovations in offices, - Expansion at the DIA and Orchestra Hall are not geared to the same folks who go to casinos or wrestlemania, - A major cleaning-up of the retail districts downtown. - Development of SEMCOG's first regional rail line, with DDOT conducting a major study in how to link into it. - Improvements at Eastern Market, and - countless other examples. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 235 Registered: 11-2006 |
Quote: "The City is intentionally creating an entertainment zone, designed to do little more than lure dollars out of the pockets of suburban visitors, and put public money into the hands of billionaire Mike Ilitch." Actually Ilitch is a conduit of those funds to the players. What does Maggs make? Over 10M / year. I believe I've read that Ilitch loses money on Tigs and Wings but makes his dough (pun intended) in pizza (and his wife at her casino). The players are the big winners. (Message edited by emu_steve on April 15, 2007) | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 236 Registered: 11-2006 |
(Message edited by emu_steve on April 15, 2007) | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 846 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Dan, I don't know what makes you think that Detroit is "pinning the entire redevelopment of its downtown on a strictly entertainment-based strategy of stadia, casinos, and Big Events." The new stadia and casinos are just a part of the entire downtown redevelopment strategy. The redevelopment strategy also includes new public spaces, such as the Riverwalk and C-Mart. The redevelopment strategy also includes the new Compuware HQ, the new PWC office building, the new 1KS office building, the $500 million dollar renovation of the RenCen that is now the new GM HQ, and the renovation of the RenCen 500 tower for the new regional EDS HQ. The redevelopment strategy also includes the new Hilton hotel in Harmonie Park, the renovated Holiday Inn hotel on Washington, and the new Westin hotel in the BC, in addition to the new 1200 rooms in the new casinos. The redevelopment strategy also includes plenty of new housing. The Lofts on Woodward, The Eureka Building, The Vinton Building, The Book Cadillac Condos, The Griswold Condos, The Lofts at Merchants Row, The Kales Building, and a ton of new housing in Brush Park are a huge part of the redevelopment strategy. I could go on for hours about all of the new downtown development that is not stadium/casino based... ---------------------------- I see no validity in your statement that building new MLB and NFL stadia in DC is "incredibly different" from building new MLB and NFL stadia in Detroit, because Detroit is "intentionally creating an entertainment zone, designed to do little more than lure dollars out of the pockets of suburban visitors, and put public money into the hands of billionaire Mike Ilitch." First off, the new stadia in DC are luring dollars out of suburban visitors and putting public money in the hands of Dan Snyder, and the owners of the Nats. In this regard, the big difference (I wouldn't call it a nuance) between DC and Detroit is that DC has put even more public money into the hands of the billionaire team owners than Detroit has. The other big difference between the new stadia in DC and Detroit is location and proximity. You say that "Detroit is intentionally creating an entertainment zone" by clustering the stadia downtown, as if it was a bad idea. Due to the large parking requirements for a pro sports stadium, and the lack of daily usage, there is very little potential for spin-off development around a new stand-alone stadium. This usually results in a stadium surrounded by nothing but parking lots. The Pontiac Silverdome and the new FexEx Field in DC are good examples of this. Clustering stadia is a good way to maximize spin-off development, and encourage higher-density land usage than would normally occur as a result of building stand-alone stadia in separate locations. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 239 Registered: 11-2006 |
Let me try a different tack on this thread. D.C. does NOT need to have all their sports facilities clustered in close proximity. D.C. has a large downtown in great shape. The new Nats ballpark is helping a 'near southeast neighborhood' which is not part of the CBD. For Detroit, Detroit NEEDED (desperately) to create a sports/entertainment zone to dramatically boost the downtown CBD area. Different strategies for different cities with different needs. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2371 Registered: 10-2003 |
^Then how do you explain Philadelphia. They have all their new sports venues clustered together in South Philly--surrounded by nothing but parking. Is that redevelopment? The office, hotel, and apartment renovations/relocations/etc of which you speak are private-sector projects. Work like this is ongoing in any healthy city. Ergo, it's a bit disingenuous to call it part of a "strategy". The City of Detroit didn't tell GM to buy the Renaissance Center.... What I meant, was that Detroit is singularly focused on these entertainment options, as far as public money is concerned. Of course, I know they've helped make the Book Cadillac project, among others, come to fruition. But there does not seem to be a cohesive strategy or plan, other than, "build a bunch of fun stuff, and hope the suburbanites come here in droves". There is no holistic plan for parking (Portland put a cap on the number of parking spots in its downtown). Where is the transit plan? Streetscaping? Small business loans? BIDs??? I would also argue that in DC, it is a bit different when suburbanites come into town for a game--they are crossing state lines. Therefore, any increased sales/restaurant tax revenue comes to the District. In Detroit, Michigan sales tax is Michigan sales tax. The other difference? We're not banking on suburbanites attending sporting events for the survival of our city. The stadia are ancillary, and their locations are indicative of this. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 771 Registered: 11-2004 |
Where is the transit plan? Streetscaping? Small business loans? BIDs??? With exception of transit many of these already exist. The city began streetscaping many of downtowns major streets. The DEGC/DDA offers small business loans. The city attempted to pass BID a few years ago, but it failed. Roger Penske and other in the business community funded the Clean Downtown program last year as a way to hopefully sell the benefits of a downtown BID. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3786 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I'm calling utter fucking bullshit on you Dan. You are like George Bush and global warming. You see only what you want to see and ignore any and all contradictory evidence and keep hammering the same crap over and over and over again just so it adheres to you prepackaged opinion...you seem utterly incapable of adjusting your opinion and views to the reality on the ground. Transit: http://www.dtogs.com/main.html Streetscaping: * $29 million in city led upgrades to Washington, Woodward (CBD) and Broadway. * $9 million pending this summer for streetscapes on John R., Clifford, Grand River and State. * $2 million planned for Monroe in Greektown and extending one block north and south on the Greektown cross streets * $50K being spent to draft plans for the Capital Park streetscape and upgrades. * The EDC and UCCA are spending close to $17 million on streetscapes on Woodward from the edge of the CBD to the north end of WSU. * The State spent $8 million with some matching City dollars on Gratiot and will spend an even higher amount with matching dollars from the City on Michigan Avenue between the Lodge and I-75 starting this summer. * Joint planning with MDOT for Mi Ave from C-Mart to the Lodge begins this summer. Of course, this does not include the $30 million or so spent rebuilding the roads and infrastructure in Brush Park [just north of the stadia] to incent the 800 new housing units already constructed with another 1,000 or so under construction / planned. Perhaps you have heard of some of the public space improvements at Campus Martius, you know that $29 million park surrounded by two brand new Class A office towers incentivized by the City at a level equal to the City incentives for the two stadia. Small Business Loans: The DDA runs a Small Business Loan Transaction from its TIF dollars that averages $1.5 million a year in loans, each loan capped at $200,000, many smaller than that. Thats a lot of loans every year. This program has been around longer than the stadiums. The DDA also runs a housing / office / retail loan program for larger projects that total around $15 million a year for land and building acquisition / improvements. The Lower Woodward Housing Fund has direct investments in new housing in the CBD and is directly capitalized by the DDA at over $20 million. BIDS: BID legislation has only recently been passed in the State and the first run at it failed to pass City Council. The BID is in the process of being revamped and will be reintroduced. Get off the ideology and adapt to the reality Dannycakes. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2373 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: That's all you had to say. No need to once again show what a self-righteous ass you are. Of course, you have all the answers, which is why Detroit is doing so fantastic these days. My point is that everything is being done piecemeal. Detroit has taken a project-by-project approach--there is nothing holistic about it. A stadium here, a casino there, a hotel over here. It's incredibly haphazard. Unless, of course, you can point me in the direction of some sort of master plan for downtown Detroit (never mind the entire city). | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 775 Registered: 11-2004 |
quote: So don't you think a project like the Book Cadillac was part of an overall city plan? Anyone paying to development could see it is, there's reason been push to development so many city-owned abandoned building Book-Cadillac, Vinton, Lafayette etc over the last few years. As Skulker pointed more streetscape improvements planning clearly something that is part of an overall strategy for downtown . While entertainment has been a big focus it's certainly not only one. Many of downtown's residential projects have been in former city-owned building as part of a plan to increase downtown's population. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 847 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... Dan, Many of your posts on this thread regarding Detroit development have been filled with grossly exaggerated assumptions based on half-truths and factually incorrect statements, written in a condescending fashion: quote: After we post valid, if sometimes curt, rebuttals to your incorrect accusations and assumptions, you respond by either shifting the argument, or simply dismissing us with a haughty retort: quote: I have a simple question for you, Dan. You have pointed out why you are are in DC, instead of Detroit, so why do you bother posting on this forum? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2383 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: No, I don't. I do believe it's part of an overall idea of sorts, but it seems that there are a bunch of projects that are being conducted in isolation from one another. Is there any kind of holistic strategy, such as Main Streets? While the elements such as facade improvements, streetscaping, subsidized renovation of buildings like the BC, and collecting input on transit (how many times can you study this???) are definitely desirable, how do they tie together? And to wit, for ever Book Cadillac, there is a Statler-Hilton. That, to me, is the plan known as Wing-and-a-Prayer. It seems to me that the City would get a lot more bang for its dollar by investing in many small projects, rather than hoping that The Next Big Project will be The One that Saves Detroit. The piecemeal approach doesn't make sense at an intuitive level. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 245 Registered: 11-2006 |
This goes back to a disagreement between Dan and I on one sports facility (Verizon Center in D.C.). I use it as a big success story. I posted that IN MY OPINION that Verizon Center in D.C. was a great sports facility story about how a sports arena led to an amazing renewal in an old CBD area. Here is a quote from the Washington Post which echos my comments: "The council members praised Pollin for making an initial, private investment that helped to transform the once-desolate Chinatown area into a bustling district of restaurants and entertainment venues." I love the Verizon Center area. It might be one of the nicest CBD renewals I've seen. Note the words, "once-desolate" and 'bustling" Those two words are powerful. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2384 Registered: 10-2003 |
^A couple of important points to consider with that: 1. Abe Pollin paid for the Verizon Center building himself. The District procured the land after Pollin approached them about the project. Thus, it wasn't the local government deciding, "We're going to build an arena HERE to try to renew the area." It was a free-market decision on Abe Pollin's part. And DC is thrilled to get the sales tax revenue that used to go to Maryland. 2. The redevelopment around the arena only extends for a radius of about 1-1/2 blocks. With that, most of Chinatown was wiped out. I'd rather have the Asian grocery stores again than Ruby Tuesday. 3. There were market forces at work as well, as real estate values climbed in the late 1990s, and downtown grew eastward. There are several new office buildings, and a ton of apartments and condos in the area. The intersection of 7th and H is busy at all hours, and not just during arena events. 4. The arena isn't surrounded by parking lots, making redevelopment far easier. Then there's this: Verizon Center Ticket Tax to Rise to 10% http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04 /19/AR2007041902588.html It almost makes you wonder how long it will be before billionaire Dan Snyder comes to the District with his hands outstretched. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3791 Registered: 10-2003 |
RE: the BC: quote: It is part of an overall plan to increase the number of hotel rooms to more adequately support Cobo, based on research conducted the DMCVB several years ago which was in turn used to support inducing the casinos to bridge the gap of inadequate hotel space by building hotels. There is a conscious effort to create entry level jobs in a city that has high unemployment and low academic achievement and to import dollars by increasing the convention and hospitality base of the city. This connects to the work being done to build upon the entertainment destinations like DOH, stadia, etc. quote: First off, you know damn well that Main Streets is not active in major CBDs. However, there is project called Restore Detroit that is rebuilding neighborhood level retail across the City, outside of the DDA. Based partially on the Mainstreets model, the first five districts have been funded and are well underway with the next round of candidate districts being evaluated currently for awarding of grants and support. P&DD is updating their 20 year plan for the CBD. Within the rubric of the older 20 year plan, DDP [and previously, DDI & GDP] have been developing strategic plans for implementing the goals of the 20 year plan. These plans, once fully developed, are spun off for the DDA to implement if funding can be secured. It is how major civic planning is done these day. A long term plan sets goals and directions, multiple shorter term strategies are developed and implemented to further those goals. These strategies tend to be smaller scale and more nimble to take advantage of opportunities. Large scale rigid plans have not worked. Example: After a comprehensive property and building stock evaluation, the Necklace District Strategy identified the most likely area of the CBD to support housing in converted vintage office space as stated as a goal of the 20 Year Plan. The Strategy then went on to identify new programs and funding sources needed to assist the conversions, leading to the creation of the Lower Woodward Housing Fund, strategic buildings to be acquired and flipped to developers through foreclosure or other similar actions. This has directly led to the Kales, Lofts of Woodward, Merchants Row, Vinton Building, Hartz and others being converted into housing. Another example is the streetscape program. The pedestrian experience in the Necklace District and connecting to other areas was horrible. Leveraging streetscapes to improve the pedestrian experience outside the identified opportunities for housing helps build market value and market demand for these units. There many many more examples The retail strategy for the vacant storefronts is now being finalized and should be implemented soon. The retail strategy is just now really getting legs because there was no need to really push retail until we knew we could fill the units and we had an understanding of what kind of retail people would like. It was understood there would need to be a retail strategy, but it was a waste of resources to plan it before it was needed. Its called phasing. Also, the City simply didn't have the money to do both strategies at the same time. The 20 year plan also called for taking action to re-energize the office market in the CBD, especially the Financial District. This led to the Campus Martius Plan which called for the acquisition of parcels, reorganization of public space and amenities to create a competitive environment of office uses and to phase such work as to no damage the existing office market. This led to the amassing of five parcels, construction of a new underground parking deck and refurbishment of another. C-Mart Park was a key component of the strategy. Three of the five blocks are now completed with Compuware and the Kennedy Square Building. Phasing and market absorption are running a little ahead of prediction, and now, keeping in pace with the market saturation concerns, the Hudsons and Monroe blocks are now being more aggressively marketed. quote: On another thread on which you were participating, it was discussed how within 2 blocks of the Vermont Hotel, several Small Business Loan Transactions have been executed enabling new restaurants, bars and jazz clubs owned and operated by local small entrepreneurs to open. These venues are being deliberately and consciously incentivized by programs created to fill in the blank spaces on the retail levels. In this thread even, there is discussion of the $1.5 million a year in SBLT that translates into 7 - 10 new small businesses a year in the CBD. RE: Statler / BC The decision to take down the Statler was made after all realistic options had been explored. You may think, with your very limited knowledge of the history of the project, that the building could have been saved. But when Pres Kabacoff, preservationist extraordinaire, looks the Mayor in the eye and says: "This is a building that should probably be demolished. It can be saved but it is going to be very very costly and if I were in your shoes, I don't think I would do it", well...ya gotta think that perhaps there was a reason for taking it down. It wasn't willy nilly, it wasn’t capricious. As Erik_d pointed out, all this is known to you DaninDC. All this has been gone over time and time again. Yet, because you have an opinion based on your ideology and not on real data and facts, you continue to make false and derogatory statements about the City. You don't ask genuine questions, you simply make uninformed, confrontational statements, challenging people to show you that you are wrong. Why? | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 246 Registered: 11-2006 |
Quote: (Skulker): "There is a conscious effort to create entry level jobs in a city that has high unemployment and low academic achievement and to import dollars by increasing the convention and hospitality base of the city." One of the real under appreciated things about building casinos, hotels, stadia, roads and bridges, etc. etc. is the big employment upside. These jobs are nice construction jobs which can NOT be exported - unlike tech support or call center jobs - to India or even bank jobs to Texas. :-( Nice to have the jobs stay locally, especially an area which needs all the jobs it can get. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3793 Registered: 10-2003 |
1,000 new jobs at the MGM alone is nothing to sneeze at when the region is shedding jobs. Its not THE solution, or a PERFECT solution...but it is PART of an effort to diversify and provide immediate employment opportunities while other efforts like Automation Alley and Road to Renaissance gain long term traction. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 605 Registered: 01-2005 |
Danindc does have an important talent that may be useful in D.C. He posts with a certain air of authority, and he sometimes makes it appear he knows what he is talking about. Usually he doesn't. The guy in my opinion doesn't ever know what he's talking about. He has no sense of the real world in which we live. His pie-in-the sky analysis of these kinds of topics have little if any merit. Many on here easily recognize that. The problem is that some don't. He must have Urban Planning and Urban Development and Investment Analysis textbooks handy at all times and pulls stuff out of them whether the references have any real relevance to the topic, or to Detroit. Buzz words galore. I too wonder what he does for a living that permits him to spend so much time analyzing and solving on paper Detroit's problems. Surely D.C. has similar problems that he can solve. I regret in some respects voicing a personal opinion about another on the forum, but geeze, I'm tired of his stuff. The answer is, I suppose, just stop reading it. That's what I'll do. Life's too short. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 779 Registered: 11-2004 |
I do think Danindc's contempt for things like publically financed stadiums,casinos really does cloud his view on the city's development efforts. As Skulker pointed out the city actions aren't entirely focused making an entertainment zone for suburbanites, but also adding residental, retail office space. Yet, no matter how much we point out what the city is doing that isn't stadium/entertainment focused he's refused to budge from his position. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 247 Registered: 11-2006 |
I have no problem with Dan using his knowledge of Detroit and D.C. Lot of the issues are the same be they urban planning, urban theory, architecture, etc. etc. Having said that, I almost completely disagree with him on these public stadia/arena/etc. type discussions. That said, Detroit and D.C. are very different cities. D.C. is the seat of the Federal Government. Unlike the automotive industry, the Federal government isn't shrinking or going away. Detroit is trying to revitalize its downtown and neighborhoods at a time it isn't growing. I believe Dan indicated that D.C. ended up its last fiscal year with a 300M surplus. Wouldn't Detroit love have any surplus!! To use an analogy. D.C. has the wind at its back while Detroit is running into a headwind. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2385 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree with your most recent post, Emu Steve. Detroit is definitely on hard times, and the biggest problem facing the city is its budget, because that in turn affects everything else. I think we can all agree that tax revenues need to be boosted, and some expenditures can probably stand to be cut. But where does the city collect the bulk of its revenues? Property taxes and income taxes-- implying that the best way to tip the budget back in favor is to grow the number of jobs and taxpaying residents. Downtown and Brush Park have seen considerable investment in residential properties, but I think we all agree there is still a long way to go. I think it's imperative that efforts to increase the taxpaying residential base develop and continue in other neighborhoods. Detroit needs to be able to retain the young college graduates who are moving out-of-state, because these are the people who pay taxes, and don't demand as much in the way of services. Most of the efforts described above, though: the stadia, casinos, hotels, conventions, etc, don't quite provide the same benefits. Sales tax, hotel tax, car rental tax--these all go to the state or county, and not directly to the city. Sure, there is an indirect benefit through revenue-sharing, but relying on temporary visitors is no way to build a sustainable and fiscally sound city--especially when the city has to leverage subsidies in order to achieve these benefits. Detroit needs cash flow, not lottery tickets. Thank you, Emu Steve, for being reasonable enough to know that basic urban development issues are the same no matter what the geographic location. It would behoove a lot of people to recognize that Detroit is not unique in the problems it has--just unique in the way it chooses to address or not address them. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3805 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Detroit is doing that. * 1,000 new jobs will be created at the MGM alone. * Detroit is developing industrial parks to compete with suburban tech parks. * Detroit is supporting and growing job generation efforts like Techtown. * The East Riverfront, with its comprehensive master plan by Cooper Robertson Partners, envisions 5,000 new residential units. *The Far Eastside project will revitalize more than 1,000 acres of largely abandoned space into new housing, parks and retail. * Detroit Neighborhood Initiative will marshall new resources to stabilize and improve six large neighborhoods across the City. quote: Luckily, these taxes are less than half the taxes generated by these venue. Frankly, I am a little surprised that this was even implied by such a knowledgeable person. The personal and corporate income taxes levied go directly to the City of Detroit. The property taxes levied on these facilities go directly to the City of Detroit. The temporary casinos have an aggregate taxable valuation of $1.38 billion for land, buildings and equipment, individually, each of them are in the top 10 largest property tax payers category . This number will nearly double when their facilities are complete. Never mind the $152 million in gaming revenue they paid directly to the City last year in addition to property taxes. Thank you Emu Steve for being reasonable enough to recognize the very different challenges facing Detroit compared to other, artificially supported economies. It would behoove people to recognize that Detroiter's are quite aware of their challenges and have developed / are developing sensible strategies and numerous diversified projects (much of that based on bench marking best practices in other cities) to address them based on local market conditions--instead of assuming that their limited knowledge of some downtown entertainment comprises the whole of Detroit's efforts. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2386 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Skulker, until you stop feeling sorry for Detroit and realize that ALL cities face the same problems, you might as well bang your head against the wall. Basic principles of finance and urban planning do not change based on geography! Shame on you for continuing to lash out from the comfort of your bubble. Now let's hear your diatribe on how New York is artificially kept alive by Wall Street, LA is nothing without the movie studios, and Houston is propped up by oil--ALL just like Detroit was "artificially" kept alive by the Big Three. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3806 Registered: 10-2003 |
Not feeling sorry for Detroit. As I clearly stated, many of the efforts have been benchmarked against successful projects in other cities and many best practices have been adopted. * A conscious decision was made solicit out of town teams like Cooper Robertson for the East Riverfront planning. * We looked to developers with conservation easement experience to work on the BC. * The Boston and Denver models of Main Streets heavily informed the ONCR project. I have never implied that LA, NYC, or Houston have artificially supported economies. In fact, I have agitated on this forum time and time again for folks to look at the Central Park Conservancy as a model for Belle Isle. - - GASP - - On this forum, I have forecasted for Houston a similar fate as Detroit if they do not learn a lot of the lessons we have learned. I have never really said anything about LA, because, well, I don't know enough about LA to speak with reasonable confidence, a stance many people on this forum would do well to adopt. I have however, looked carefully at many of their DDA efforts. I have pointed out that having the seat of the federal governement in your city allows for an artificially supported economy that allows one more freedom and more ability when approaching urban design and urban policy. If I have read your posts correctly, DC is the place that you spent most, if not all of your career. Perhaps it is you that needs to get out and see the world a little. The real issue here is that you assume because Detroit isn't doing as well as Washington DC, it is because there are backwater, provincial retards running the place that only need to follow what YOU say to solve the problems. I posit to you that perhaps YOUR perspective of the work needed is warped by working in an artificially supported economy, i.e. Washington DC and that many of the "easy" answers are not so easy to get to. And its not just me Dan, many others here feel the same way. We would love to have input from you, if you would take the time to learn and share, not merely blindly lecture. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2387 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: This is simply not true, Skulker. You have never provided evidence for this claim, no matter how many times you use it. You conveniently neglect the following when you make this argument: *DC is prohibited by Congress from levying a commuter tax, unlike any other American city. This means the incomes of over half a million people are not taxed by the District, even though they certainly use our services *Precisely because of the federal presence, fully 40% of the real property in this city cannot be taxed. *Those big events you always hear about, like the Million Man March, Reagan's funeral, and Dick Cheney's motorcaded commute? Yup, we pay for the needed police. *DC's budget was in such a bad way in the late 1990s, that Congress took over, and instituted the infamous Control Board to set the ship straight. It is only because of the Control Board, and a damn good CFO, that the budget is in such good shape now. *Congressionally-mandated building height restrictions influence the real-estate market (for better or for worse). These are all restrictions, if anything. I don't see how this can be constituted as affording greater flexibility. I don't mean to go on-and-on, but I believe this deserves clarity once and for all. I'm not using DC as a yardstick to measure Detroit's shortcomings, but as a tool for juxtaposition. And for the record, I do not support my local government's decision to spend $611 million on a baseball stadium, or to give money to Abe Pollin for Verizon Center upgrades. I also think the new convention center is one of the biggest debacles this city has undertaken in the past 10 years. I do not believe these projects have done/will do much for the average resident, and the money could have been better spent. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3807 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Thats a change, a few months ago it seemed pretty good to you. The fact that the federal government is a very large direct employer with tens of thousands of jobs largely insulated from layoffs and downsizing and immune from offshoring or relocation is a phenomenon that only a few select cities like Paris, Rome, London etc get to enjoy. This provides a solid job base that provides sustained demand for housing, retail and other commercial services that does not leave for cheaper non-union places. The fact that any other government wishing to do business in DC has to have an embassy that utilizes many local businesses and keeps land values inflated is a phenomenon that only cities like Paris, Rome and London get to enjoy. The fact that thousands of organizations like the Airline Pilots association need to be in DC to lobby, artificially props up the office market. The Airline Pilots Association has an office of about 120,000 SF. That office will never move. Nor will hundreds if not thousands of organizations like it. For sake of comparison, the 125,000 SF Kennedy Square building is highly controversial amongst building owners here as they are concerned it will have a large impact on the market. Perhaps we can convince the Airline Pilots Association to move to Detroit because Kennedy Square is in a Renaissance Zone. Changes in elected officials bring about mass churn in the housing market with people leaving and their replacements needing housing, keeping values high. If you are unable to see the massive and artifically sustained influence the presence of the federal government has on the real estate values and building occupancies of DC, you really have no fundamental understanding of real estate markets. The DC area is an area immune to pressures from outside, competing markets. Will the PEanut Farmers of America decide to relocate to rural Mississippi where they can get non-union secretaries? Yes there are additional expenditures, yes the federal government does not pay taxes on 40% of the land the aforementioned factors well offset them. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 250 Registered: 11-2006 |
Quote: "Thank you, Emu Steve, for being reasonable enough to know that basic urban development issues are the same no matter what the geographic location. It would behoove a lot of people to recognize that Detroit is not unique in the problems it has--just unique in the way it chooses to address or not address them." Detroit and D.C. are the two cities I'm most familiar. I know a little about Balto but not enough not to make foolish mistakes. If I knew much about Chicago or Atlanta I'd certainly bring them into the discussion if warranted. I do like to use D.C. as it is proving that a large urban city with problems can turn around. Sure D.C. has had big problems (the Barry admin did for D.C. what the Young admin did for Detroit) and some bad decisions were made (agree about D.C. Convention Center). Our regional co-operation isn't perfect but it is head and shoulders then Detroit's. D.C. and 'burbs have issues as does Detroit and their 'burbs but we work together better (at least since Mayor Barry has been out of office) then does Detroit and their 'burbs. Here again, I compare and contrast the two cities and see what we can learn. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4347 Registered: 10-2003 |
Whatever became of Kucinich's hearing on publicly financed stadiums? My understanding is that there are two reasons for Congressional committees to hold hearings. 1. Study and review proposed legislation. 2. Investigate wrongdoing in the Federal government. Did this committee, based on these hearings, make any recommendations on proposed legislation? Did they uncover any illegal activities by government officials stemming from the public financing of stadiums? That hearing was almost a month ago and there's nothing on Google News suggesting any action by Kucinich's committee regarding public dollars toward stadium projects. Unless I hear otherwise I'm left to assume this hearing was a gigantic waste of tax dollars. Development projects that try and fail to create significant economic impact are bad. Congressional hearings that serve no purpose other than grandstanding by the committee chair are even worse. There is no excuse for the later. But then again I wouldn't expect anything less from the 7th worst mayor in U.S. history. quote: quote: (Message edited by Jelk on April 23, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2389 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: No, but it also provides a market for cheaper places across state lines, and we're suddenly into the issue of nontaxable income and property, but with demand put upon the core city's infrastructure (see above). Unlike Detroit's relationship with Lansing, we don't see revenue sharing from Richmond and Annapolis. When we actually have a Congress and a president who understand fiscal responsibility, expect massive government cutbacks. Only about 20% of local employment is related to the federal government, which is a figure comparable to Detroit's auto industry. quote: And they also inhabit some of the priciest real estate in the city--none of which is taxable. The 5.75% sales tax isn't squat compared to the foregone property taxes. quote: No different than financial firms in New York, computer-related companies in the Bay Area, or automotive-related companies in Detroit. But, of course, as Detroit has its Troy and Southfield, there is nothing to keep a firm in DC; they can easily have an office in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Bethesda, or Silver Spring--all of which are out-of-state and cheaper. Never mind that Congressionally-mandated height limits introduce certain inefficiencies. For example, large law firms need to occupy several different buildings. quote: Sounds like a net-zero gain, doesn't it? Where's the increased demand? What's preventing all those folks from living in the suburbs (a lot of them do)? You're also talking about several hundred people (several thousand, including staffs) in a metropolitan area of over 5 million. Even if employment of elected officials and staffs is 50,000 people--that's only 1% of the entire market. quote: Like Baltimore, which is about half the cost, and only an hour train ride away? What about Fredericksburg or West Virginia? Those are all easily commutable, and yes, there is evidence that people are moving to those areas for lower housing costs. quote: I never said that. As I've posted repeatedly, stop putting words in my mouth with your selective interpretations. I know that it's difficult for you to believe that Detroit operates just like any other city, but it does. Even still, if you are correct that all of my asserations about DC are dead wrong, then why does Detroit lag most every other large city? Certainly, Boston and Chicago aren't doing well because of the "artificial presence of the federal government". What's your excuse for every other city doing better than Detroit??? (Message edited by DaninDC on April 23, 2007) (Message edited by DaninDC on April 23, 2007) | ||
Quozl Member Username: Quozl Post Number: 485 Registered: 07-2005 |
quote: Ain't that rich coming from Danindc! What a blowhard. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3808 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I find that figure difficult to believe. But assuming its true, has there been any downsizing and offshoring to Mexico, China or Korea of governmental functions in the last 20 years? Has there been a massive restructuring of labor to new facilities 500 - 700 miles away? quote: Basic economics. The land they inhabit makes land more scarce, which drives up values, which offsets the loss of taxes and creates a false land demand structure. In any other region, land would be much more plentiful and thus have a very different value compared to the artificial demand and cost structure created by the governmental uses. quote: My original point is that they are still in the market area, not in Mississippi or Korea. Yes Detroit has Southfield and Troy, both of which are sucking wind right now because the companies that were here are going bankrupt or moving out of state because they are not geographically dependent on the Detroit Region. The Airline Pilot Association is geographically dependent, whether in DC or squeezed out to a suburb. They are still in the are and replaced in DC by someon willing to pay the DC prices. If the surrounding office markets were healthy with an artificially enhanced office market in a similar fasion, I am sure Detroit would be doing much better. quote: Never said there was an increased demand, just said that there was a lot of churn in the market place with new residents coming in and residents leaving creating turn over and increased market values a rate higher than one would see in other markets. Considering the number of military personnel cycled in and out, the number of State Department personnel cycled in and out (I have direct knowledge of the effect of both governrmantal agencies through close friends who have been transferred in and out of DC several times in the past decade and a half...you see Dan, I get to DC two or three times a year and have done so for 15 - 20 years now...when was the last time you were in Detroit?) there is a tight housing market that is constantly being driven upwards in valuation, at a rate that far exceeds national averages. quote: Detroit doesn't lag "every other major City" and I do believe it does operate like many other major cities...That is why we benchmark other cities. When compared to true peer cities, Detroit is just about in the middle. Philly, Boston, NY and Chicago are doing better. St. Louis, Indy, your dear beloved Cleveland, Cincy, Pittsburgh et al are experiencing the same hard times or worse. Is this what this is about? A Cleveland boy tired of being compared to Detroit? It truly boggles my mind that you refuse to believe that the capital city of the worlds most powerful and richest nation might be an anomoly compared to other cities with that country. How blind are you? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2390 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Then boggle away. Fifteen, twenty years ago, DC faced the same problems Detroit is facing now, but managed to start turning things around. It's Detroit that's been living in a fantasy land, thinking you can take a stubborn outdated industry that refuses to adapt, load it with incredible financial burdens, and somehow replace those lost factory jobs with card dealers and hot dog vendors. You don't like the DC comparison? Fine. Boston and Chicago were crapholes in the 80s. New York in the 1970s and 80s. They managed to turn things around. What did they do that Detroit didn't? Certainly, it wasn't because they sunk tons of public money into some sort of Disneyland Pleasure Island in their downtowns. Detroit can't afford to be ham-handed. Improving the quality of life issues must take precedence over handouts to billionaires. Otherwise, the only people willing to live in Detroit are going to be billionaires, and they're all going to be looking for handouts, or some other means of exploiting the public (as the casinos do). | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3811 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And its you that stops reading when words like Techtown and NextEnergy are posted here. Card dealers and hot dog vendors are a portion of the solution, not the magic bullet or only solution. Why is that so fucking hard for you to understand? Why? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8899 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I just checked my investments and I am certainly no billionaire but I am very happy living in the city. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 608 Registered: 01-2005 |
You know, folks, that by responding to the guy you're just encouraging him. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2395 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Then more power to you. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2396 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: http://www.greatamericanjobssc am.com/Chapters/Chapter7.pdf | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 299 Registered: 10-2005 |
Let me try to put some perspective on this from the Baltimore point of view. We had a mayor--Donald Schaffer, back in the 60s who realized that without a tax base, there would be no Baltimore. The city was in the shits. So, rather than investing in schools or libraries, he placed a greater emphasis on the immediate downtown areas--Charles Center, Harbor Place, and the dollar homes near those two areas. He realized that without an active and promising heart to the city, the rest of the city would be lost due to flight. That began the turn-around for Baltimore. It took a looooonnnng time and it is still occuring. But, because of those initial investments, people started taking a second look at the city and its options. After that was accomplished, successive mayors with state aide have pushed for and won many institutions in the downtown area including both the stadiums, Science Center, numerous museums, streetscaping, and luring other businesses to move into the city. All of those proceeding actions have created a city that now has a tax base and major new investments in the neighborhoods. Schools have turned around from 38-1 ratio in the 60s without textbooks and shitty campuses to now having a ratio of 20-1, cleaner and refurbished campuses, and new textbooks for all. New libraries have been built. New rec centers have been built, the parks have been cleaned up, and major new investments have been made across the city. Neighborhoods deemed unfit for human living are now pushing home sales in the 200s-500s. That is progress and those stadiums being built downtown contributed to it. Having lived in Detroit for 20 years, I see a direct coorlation (not sure on the spelling) to Baltimore. It will not be over-night but in the long run, those stadiums being built in the city are having a direct impact on future investment in the immediate area and in the long-run, the entire city will benefit. It will not occur over-night. It didn't here and it won't there. Dan---Just admit it that Skulker is right and be done with it. Detroit and Baltimore and Pittsburgh are not DC. They have not benefited from the feds building a super-metro. And... they have not benefited from so much other federal tax money. I also take issue with one part in particular of Dan's study link. In the study, it noted that when the Raven's Stadium was built, over 1000 jobs were lost due to the clearing of sites. They were misleading and trying to prove their point inaccurately---95 percent of the places that were moved for the stadium relocated in OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY---keeping those jobs in the city tax base. Not only that, but 1000s of new jobs have been added to the city because many companies are finding the city a comfortable place to locate and set up shop. I would also not try to compare Boston and Chicago or NYC with Detroit----none of those places sunk to the depths that Detroit did. If you want to compare cities, use Baltimore, or Pittsburgh, or Buffalo, or even your beloved Cleveland. Skulker is trying to tell you that the stadiums are not the cure-all for Detroit. He has also referenced numerous examples to clarify his point. It is that difficult for you just to admit that he is right and go on with your life???? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9368 Registered: 10-2003 |
Sorry DaninDc that Detroit doesn't have the federal gov't working in the city. How much federal $$$ made its way into DC? Detroit is trying to change the industry but it takes time. The automobile industry has only been around for 87 years but in your eyes Detroit should change the industry in a week. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2400 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hmmm.... Should I believe Skulker, or dozens of PhDs with well-documented research who independently reached the same conclusion? No contest for Skulker, right? If you read through the selection, the claim is not "Stadiums are not cure alls" but "Publicly financed stadiums are MONEY LOSERS, contrary to what their proponents say". The difference between the two is far from subtle, so I must assume that you read and believe only what you want. New York City was on the brink of bankruptcy in the 1970s. Is that what you mean by "not as bad" as Detroit??? How the hell do you people expect Detroit to get anywhere if you keep feeling sorry for it (Oh--boo hoo. Please don't compare Detroit to anywhere but a third world shithole, because otherwise it's unfair.) You might as well tell your kids to quit school, because they'll never be as smart as Stephen Hawking. Of course, Detroit (and apparently now Baltimore) know things that the rest of the world doesn't. You have to be an arrogant prick, or simply ignorant of history, to think that everything has always been roses in DC, thanks to the federal government. Based on the peoples' insistence on tried-and-failed methods of spending public money, I graciously choose to think the latter. (Message edited by DaninDC on April 24, 2007) | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 300 Registered: 10-2005 |
hehehe---Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Buffalo are now "third-world shitholes" Dan---I don't need to say anymore. You just chose to show us a true representation. Congratulations!! | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 788 Registered: 11-2004 |
quote: So is it not equally arrogant or prickish to constantly proclaim that because some stadiums and casinos were built, that it comprises our entire redevelopment effort in Detroit? (Message edited by eric on April 24, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2401 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Well, what are the other parts of the strategy? A couple rehab projects? Is that trivializing the BC and Kales Building, among others? Sure. My point is that renovations and rehabs happen all the time in cities. It's disingenuous to call it part of a permanent strategy. There are a lot of pieces that seem to be missing, and it seems the whole "strategy" is geared more toward getting suburbanites to spend their money in town than making Detroit attractive for the would-be Chicagoan college graduates that Detroit could use. While it's nice to see suburbanites coming downtown and enjoying themselves, how does a plan banking on their money differ from the intra-regional poaching that is so despised on other threads? Detroit has a large white collar populace, which unfortunately is spread thin throughout the suburbs. This is why I don't understand how an economy of beer and slot machines is supposed to change Detroit for the better. IMHO, a real "comeback" entails the following goals: 1. increased tax revenues 2. increased employment 3. increased income, by which I mean, the aggregate income of all residents rises. I prefer to use this measure, since population doesn't always tell the whole story. 4. increased property values (goes hand-in-hand with #1) and a qualitative "goal"--better city services. People will argue to their last breath that the casinos and stadiums will produce the four goals I mention above. I disagree. I don't have time to refute the arguments at this moment. As far as I can tell, though, the proponents of this claim are like the underwear gnomes on South Park: 1. collect underpants 2. ???? 3. profit | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3815 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Well, we have gone over this.... quote: Dan said: quote: This is again after I reminded him of the efforts well beyond beer and gambling such as TechTown, NextEnergy and the entirety of the office portion of the Campus Martius project which includes Compuware. Dan said: quote: Those are the explicit goals of the City. Revenue is enhanced through gaming revenue and the creation of nearly 5,000 new jobs for entry level workers through CPAs. Is that the only strategy? Clearly not. Clearly it is a protion of the strategy, designed to garner significant revenue quickly, while providing immediate job relief and budget relief while the the other initiatives take hold. Although Dan seems to think it is the only thing the City is doing... I don't understand why. Here is a list of efforts of which the City is either the leader or a key partner. All of these have significant City funds and personnel hours invested and are targeted at emerging and high technology businesses or fields of research. http://www.techtownwsu.org/ http://www.nextenergy.org/ http://www.automationalley.com /autoalley/Automation+Alley http://www.detroitrenaissance. com/road_to_ren.htm | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 291 Registered: 10-2003 |
ooo...this is a hard thread to get through. my typical reaction to the public financing of billionaires' stadiums is that they are a 'oft times a punk ass hunk of bunk junk in the trunk. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2403 Registered: 10-2003 |
Re: Skulker's post #3815: 1. Transit--do it already. How many times does this need to be studied? It reeks of Cleveland's Euclid Corridor project, which took 25 years to go from a 6-mile subway to a $250 million overglorified landscaping project. At least Cleveland's project is getting built. What improvements have been made in DDOT service? A 15% unemployment rate in the City tells me there are still plenty of people who can't get to jobs. 2. Increasing tax revenues via casinos. Fantastic. Glad to see Detroit is hedging its bets, pardon the pun, on companies that will funnel most of the money away to Vegas, instead of reinvesting in Detroit. Shipping money out of town = good idea??? Is the budget balanced yet? It probably wouldn't hurt to improve the city's bond rating. But, should Mike Ilitch come looking for a handout for a new arena or another building demolition, you gotta let some crap slide, right? 3. quote: This is just gambling on Detroit being "the next Silicon Valley" or "the next biomed hub". Good luck. There is every indication that, to use James Kunstler's term, the Era of Easy Motoring is not sustainable in the long-term--regardless of the type of fuel used. See today's USA Today article. There's no way we can keep building the driveable metropolis. All levels of government are struggling under its crushing burden, and this shell game of "the next big fuel" is only indicative of a massive state of denial. Toyota outsold GM in the first quarter because of their fuel-efficient vehicles. That might be a place to start, instead of attempting fantastic daydreams like powering cars with corn and switchgrass. |
