Comments on: Hotel/Conference Center Ideas Go Forward

By: John Q.

John Q. — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:13:13 +0000

“If we just sit around and let every surface parking lot stay that way forever, our downtown will decompose.”

This is a bit extreme to be coming from a former City Councilmember. The idea that the choice is between this proposal and a decomposing downtown is rhetorical excess.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:33:32 +0000

I’m for a new conference center, 100%. Just not with one DIME of city backed bonds or anything that puts City of Ann Arbor taxpayers financially at risk.

If it’s such a sure thing, what aren’t there other companies, other investors willing to foot the risk?

By: Lisa Dengiz

Lisa Dengiz — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:51:36 +0000

I also do not wish the city to take such a risk with taxpayer funds to support this private project.

And while I agree with Joan that empty lots do not help with revitalization of the downtown, the risk to the taxpayers that will be required to pay for this risky project is simply too much to ask.

Perhaps the Valiant group can return to UM Deans that wrote support letters and formally ask UM if they would like to participate in the development of the project, and share in its the financial risk/profits of course- now that would be very” Valiant” of the UM to partner on what could be a wonderful town/gown investment in the community.

Or maybe some of the wealthy community “angel investors recently profiled can be convinced to support this project with their dollars as a “gift ” to the community or as their own a long term investment? Maybe with the right naming opportunities, the right angel investor can emerge?

And I am delighted to learn there is mention of a community space akin to Rockefeller Plaza!

By: Piotr Michalowski

Piotr Michalowski — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:04:34 +0000

While we are asking questions, perhaps someone knows what happened with the earlier consultant report concerning the viability of a conference center in Ann Arbor? Do we just pay for new reports until we get the results that are politically acceptable?

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:51:04 +0000

Does anyone know why the senior housing proposers dropped out? I don’t mean speculation. Has anyone talked to them to find out?

By: Gary Salton

Gary Salton — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:52:53 +0000

It sure looks like progress to me. We’re watching sausage being made but I think the people involved in the decision making have their heads on straight. They deserve–and get — my thanks for the effort.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:21:26 +0000

According to my notes from the meeting, Susan Pollay made the point that the committee didn’t have the expertise to do a financial assessment. She urged them to let the consultant do the market assessment. “Hire the expertise to tell you – they’ll be the ones to see if any of these proposals meet what council wants.” CM Rapundalo said “I did not walk in here assuming that whatever was presented to us is the 100% solution.” He suggested that further discussion on the design, etc. could determine who can pull it off “irrespective of the markets – the markets are going to change”.

I was concerned that these remarks indicate that the consultant’s assessment will be presented as the only valid judgment, bypassing the committee’s and the community’s evaluation of the finances.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:52:54 +0000

I’m pulling for “not *quite* enough money… if only we hadn’t hired that consultant…”

By: Bob Martel

Bob Martel — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:50:45 +0000

I agree that the paths apparently chosen stand no chance of getting the necessary City funding/guarantees. What’s the point of studying them any further? Unless the consultant has some magic source of free money hidden up his/her sleeve, this is a big waste of time for all concerned.

By: Piotr Michalowski

Piotr Michalowski — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:55:52 +0000

I am sorry, but when we have to face such serious cuts in spending, it seems pure folly to follow down this route. Both proposals under consideration require tremendous amounts of our money, and it does not require a “consultant,” a breed I find somewhat unnecessary, to know that no new hotel would thrive without drawing off clients from existing ones and that Ann Arbor is not a prime place for conventions all year ’round. No matter what a consultant says, I think it is fairly obvious, for example, that it would be impossible for this city to build a convention center across the street–there is simply no money for that. Why even consider such a project, when it is practically impossible. Where would the funds come from and would the citizens really agree to such spending? This process was driven by preconceived notions and has moved on blindly. There are many possible uses for this space, but the two projects chosen for consideration are the ones least likely to be actualized because of practical matters. It is time to wake up to fiscal reality.