Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich
I feel like that word gets tossed around, a lot. No one in the decision-making process is personally benefitting from the denial of the approval for the Special Design Review. Corruption is using one's power on a public body to personally get something of value in return; that is not what happened here, it's not even close to what happened.
I think it can be see as a bad and disappointing decision without having to toss "corruption" charges onto it.
Anyway, looks like the mayor was particularly supportive of the project either, we learn. They were right to pull this with opposition from the mayor on down. Hopefully, they property owner and employees can work out whatever they need to work out, and then they can try this again given that this seems to have literally been the only reason for the denial of approval. The council was very clear that they did not deny approval because of architecture, size, etc.
I am still completely unclear how this is legal, however, and I'm kind of surprised no one has asked exactly which criterium they are using to deny the approval.
Maybe #17 could apply to the current hotel operations apart from the labor issues?
|
Dude, the council wanted the owners to sign an agreement to be "neutral on labor unionization", disregarding the fact that some of the hotel workers are already apart of a union. On top of that, it's been three years. The hotel is still operating and still getting business otherwise you would see it struggling and there wouldn't be a need for a second tower.
Then, like I've been saying, Ayers had former connections to a specific union that wants to represent these specific hotel workers. So does every new hotel project need this particular union to be involved in order to be approved? That's not fishy? That's not using one's power on a public body to personally get something of value in return?
I mean, they didn't get it which is why it's not corruption, but if the hotel owners agreed to
signing a special condition in order to get their hotel built (that no other hotel has had to sign), that'd raise a lot of red flags. And again, do future hotels or any future development now have to sign this agreement to get approval?
Of course, Detroit has the Community Benefits Ordinance, but that only applies to projects that use city money. Makes sense. But this hotel project didn't ask for any city money. So then is the goal for the city to forcibly become involved in micromanaging every project regardless of if public money is used or not? That's a bit of a strong-arm government isn't it?
If not corruption then its just really shitty of city council to do that and I'd have higher expectations on how they treat all developers. Detroit isn't in the position to shut out anybody lest all we can depend on is wealthy billionaires and big corporations.