Why did city waste everybody's time and money on the hotel/conference center project?
I read with great surprise the news that the City Council is prepared to vote down the proposed hotel and conference center. One must wonder about the decision-making methodology our city leaders use.
Several million dollars of taxpayers' money has been built into the underground parking garage foundations and its structure in order to accommodate an up to 18-story high, yet undefined structure atop.
Then several proposals had been requested and received from developers, who all had to spend thousands of dollars in order to prepare them. The city has selected two proposals for further investigations, engaging a consultant, paying them tenth of thousands of dollars to evaluate and select the better of the two. The consultant selected the hotel and convention center.
A committee (with three council-members on it) worked to prepare a letter of intent to be submitted to council's approval.
And now that after close to two years of "deliberations", the Council is prepared to vote for abandoning the whole project.
It begs the question: why have they wasted everyone's time and everyone's (including all taxpayers) money?
Robert M. Darvas Ann Arbor Professor Emeritus of Architecture, University of Michigan
Comments
Tony Livingston
Mon, Apr 11, 2011 : 11:46 p.m.
Why are politicians making decisions about major building projects? This happens all the time in Ann Arbor. No surprise.
IRISH DONN
Mon, Apr 11, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
Because that's what a Democratic run government does!
DonBee
Mon, Apr 11, 2011 : 1:46 a.m.
We don't know why they wasted people's time and money, the will not honor the FOIA.
diagbum
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
I think they should build a parking structure on top of the money pit...
Mike D.
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
That land eventually should be developed. Investing in infrastructure to allow a real hotel and conference center makes perfect sense; it will revitalize that no-mans-land area and bring business to town. However, all the proposals that came in require the city to be on the hook for construction. So the best proposal wasn't good enough. This isn't shocking given the state of the economy when these proposals were developed. Waiting for a hotel developer with real skin in the game, even if it takes a few years for credit markets to free up enough to make this feasible, is the prudent thing to do.
say it plain
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.
actually, @Mike D., it doesn't 'make perfect sense', and that was the point of some peoples' opposition to the proposal, whether or not the city would be 'on the hook' for the construction. There are many ways to 'revitalize' a part of town that already includes the main branch of its well-used library system, and a hotel and conference center atop an underground parking lot isn't necessarily the first thing that might pop into the minds of many a citizen, business owner, or developer even lol! *That's* why it is an interesting question to ask how this idea got so far off the ground as it did! And the answers would be fascinating reading AA.com, don't you see?!
say it plain
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
This is a great question! I hope AA.com finds the guts to ask it fully, to follow up on their FOIA request appeal, but the recent editorial from their head honchos seemed to be playing the "of course, we thought this was a silly proposal all along" game. This makes it appear that they have no intention to look into why the city seemed in some ways so committed to a conference center and into why the proposal process was so clearly flawed. I suspect there would be some interesting answers, and surely AA's citizens deserve an inquiry.
blahblahblah
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.
A similar development "pattern/process/mindset" also exists with the propsoed Fuller Station Parking development, where over a million dollars have already been spent as a down payment and an additional $10 million more will be borrowed for construction costs. All this on top of a free park land give away. I will disagree with mayor and argue that this land (adjecent to the hospital) is just as valuable if not more valuable than the library lot. So while the mayor and council want to hold out for a better deal for the Library lot, they seem eager to give away land to "his employer" U of M. I have said this before, the mayor and any other council members employed by U of M should do the right thing and abstain from the Fuller Station vote. This conflict of interest is unacceptable and is no different than if one of them worked for Valient and were voting to push through the conference center proposal.
say it plain
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.
I think that's a very good point... Has AA.com called the mayor and his 'people' on this?!
Ron Granger
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.
It was *incredibly dumb to spend so much to engineer the parking structure to support an 18 story building. We don't need another "skyscraper". Now we hear we can't consider parks and other projects for the site because we've invested so much preparing for a "skycraper". Dumb. How many cities have been duped into building doomed conference centers by make a quick buck developers?
Wolf's Bane
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 12:36 p.m.
I don't think this experience was a waste of time at all, but proof that the citizens of Ann Arbor will not be fooled with! It would certainly appear that we have more common sense and keener sense of what our city needs than some city employees! Just saying.