Comments on: Caucus Chess Talk: Building City Place

By: sam i am

sam i am — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:19:10 +0000

Ann Arbor around US 23/Plymouth Rd & Geddes exits has it’s resident panhandlers too. These exits are ‘staffed’ everyday with the same type of people with the same sign. Eight hours of tax-free money, why choose minimum wage? They probably bring enough in to stay at a hotel daily or pay their mortgage or apartment rent.

By: Mark Koroi

Mark Koroi — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:48:37 +0000

I agree that most panhadlers are not homeless.

Downtown Detroit has a plethora of panhandlers and you see the same faces in front of the same buildings for years.

Many panhandlers see it as a cost-benefit analysis. It is lot easier to panhandle and feign homelessness to passersby than to work at a minimum wage job in difficult conditions.

There are truly needy veterans, disabled and homeless persons who panhandle out of necessity, but a huge percentage of the total persons panhandling are not homeless or needy.

By: Jack F

Jack F — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:30:33 +0000

“The developer is bluffing about City Place. Public officials should always call such bluffs.”

THIS is the kind of brilliant political ‘leadership’ in this town. I’m against bulldozer driving developers and want a process open to the public, et. al. but from day one, this entire project has been a cluster, almost entirely due to the comic book quality leadership on Council. They are making De Parry seem like a rational and reasonable man and I would suggest the leadership we are getting from Ms. Briere is little different than the the other elected bobble head Dems. Ms. De Parry is right–this entire fiasco is sad.

By: Betsy de Parry

Betsy de Parry — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:28:15 +0000

Thanks to those who recognize when a developer tries to do the right thing. This is not a bluff. What it is – is sad.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:46:02 +0000

What Marvin said. Why should he bluff? He has the cards.

By: Marvin Face

Marvin Face — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:44:53 +0000

Nothing would please me more than seeing the bulldozers rumble down the street after Sabra calls his bluff. I too would have rather seen Heritage Row but some on City Council would rather stand on principle than have a nice development so here, have your concrete box and pat yourself on your back for doing the right thing.

Also, would somebody nudge Anglin? He’s fallen asleep again.

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:55:13 +0000

The developer is bluffing about City Place. Public officials should always call such bluffs.

By: Stephen Landes

Stephen Landes — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:59:58 +0000

Sabra Briere mourns the developers decision to proceed with a project that no one really wants to see because she doesn’t want to “budge” on her position on Heritage Row? That doesn’t make sense – in fact it is profoundly silly. The developer wants to do “the right thing”, but Council members are digging in their heels. The result will be that the City will get the less desirable project. Council needs to grow up and help developers that want to do good work and produce good projects.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:13:51 +0000

The Heritage Row project design rejected by City Council last summer (twice) already contained 154 bedrooms. It was only the development agreement that stated 163 bedrooms. (That would have allowed for the future addition of nine more bedrooms.) The article implies that the project design has only recently been modified to eliminate nine bedrooms, but that is not the case.

Heritage Row has been rejected by Council twice and any reconsideration at this late date would be a violation of the public trust and an unprecedented setting aside of Council rules. A truly and substantially modified proposal, if presented, should go back through the proper and legal approval channels, not win some backdoor approval based on the blackmail threat of an even less desirable project.

Instead of giving the developer any hope of yet another reconsideration of Heritage Row, Council, along with the Planning Commission, ought to turn its attention to addressing the perceived loopholes and poor definitions in the zoning (and errors in its interpretation) that have been brought to light by recent projects like 828 Greene and City Place. There is simply no excuse for the City allowing these abominations to blight our city, now and in the future.