Profiles in Courage? Lol.

Any master planning process must include the public as the major stakeholders in this and other properties owned in the name of our common good.

Peter, I’d suggest that a master plan for these two blocks should also attend to the west side of Fourth; filling in the lower level of the parking deck with some kind of retail would do a lot for this street.

If there is data that supports building another conference center in Ann Arbor, it seems to have been kept from the public so far. The Roxbury report was to have included an “Economic Viability” study (vs. a “financial feasibility” study of the specifically proposed project). While never defined, I presume from context that Economic Viability is slang for 1) “Demand Analysis”, i.e. is there enough demand – locally, regionally, nationally – to justify spending public money on a conference center, whether in the form of tax abatements/tax subordination to expenses, reduced sale price for the “land”, or direct appropriation to debt service or operations; and 2) “Creation of Economic Value”, either in the form of direct cash returns to DDA coffers, or indirect return to the city via increased value & tax payments to surrounding properties in their current states of development. I see nothing like any of this in the Roxbury report.

The recent report commissioned by Valient Partners (author and title escape me) at least looks at some data for the last three years, in a qualitative (not analytical) way. They also cite some data from conference centers in roughly similar cities – but none of the data they site relate to revenues cover operations and debt service, which seems to me like the first question to ask. Nor does this report discuss any spillover benefits to the community in any systematic or analytical manner. If they’re not going to discuss the operating results of other conference centers, of what relevance is any of the data they cite? What’s up with this failure to ask the single most obvious question (hint: I have some information on two of them, and they don’t cover operations + debt service)?

I have yet to hear anyone criticize the methodology or data of the Skelton report – I have only heard of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Skelton used as justification for ignoring the conclusions of his report. In addition to making a statement about the emotional and intellectual maturity of a portion of our ruling class, this suggests to me that the supporters of the conference center, themselves, know of no legitimate reason to pursue it.

National data, and the experience of other cities’ forays into the meeting business, have been covered intensely by Dr. Heyward Sanders, at the University of Texas, San Antonio Lyndon Johnson School of Public Policy. Dr. Sanders has written for the Brookings Institution, given testimony to Congress, and is now apparently writing a book, on the nation-wide folly of building publicly financned and/or owned meeting centers. Dr. Sanders suggests that the trend in the meeting business for over a decade has been for this market to decline, even as cities across the country add to the stock of meeting space available. It is in this context that council proposes to build a publicly owned meeting space here in town. And yes, I did send a copy of Dr. Sander’s report to the mayor and council some time ago. The Chron links to this report in a prior story on this topic.

If there is any methodology, data and analysis that supports building this project with public money, when do we get to see it?

“LOI” stands for “Letter of Intent”, NOT “Letter of Information”. If the LOI commits us to nothing, then there is no reason to sign it. Council can pursue information without signing anything with the developers, and that is exactly what they should do: pursue information without signing anything with the developer.

The popular word now from architects is “iconic”, referring to buildings that do more than just fill space but make a signature point on the landscape. This architect has succeeded, but perhaps not in the way intended. One commenter on AnnArbor.com referred to it as the “Martian toaster”, which doesn’t actually make a lot of sense but conveys the feeling very well.