The opinion piece by the editor I don't agree with. It's not that I don't agree with his concerns, but his ultimate conclusion (I'm not going to support this) didn't seem well thought out.
I was really going to highlight the second article, which displays exactly what I'm talking about. I think the piece was very fair and objective. It raises the side of the debate that we don't hear, here, except when I voiced my concerns. The quote by councilman Hewitt particularly stood out:
“For asking questions we’re being called obstructionists and naysayers,” Hewitt said. “It has nothing to do with whether we support the project or don’t.”
This kind of sums up my responses, here. To me, it looks like the majority of the council is clearly behind this, but the developer and administration seems to be doing everything in their power to be rude and dismissive of people simply asking questions of the project. Aside from the Friends of the City Market, I haven't gotten the impression that the vast majority of the people asking questions about this are against the idea of a new market. I also don't think the developer and administration has been as respectful and transparent as they could be.
If the mayor, the developers, and it's rabid supporters (those that are absolutely astounded that anyone would be asking any tough questions of the developer) continue with their arrogance, they are going to continue to lose trust among the people that make these things happen.
You catch more flies with honey than you do with...well, you know the rest.
As for the weeks delay in the vote, this is good for Mr. Gillespie, in particular.
I thought the same - the opinion piece was what I was referring to when I said it was very skewed. I'm just impatient and want a decision now, but you're probably right that it's good for Mr. Gillespie. Especially in light of what you said - that many of the question-askers are just concerned, not necessarily against the project. This will give a chance to get some of those concerns out of the way to hopefully clear the path for this to move forward.
These people aren't just asking questions, their calling to save the existing market and nix the development. They are seriously trying to raise money to do this, and I think its dumb. The current market is defecient in many ways, its interior and site layouts are horrible, besides the utility problems. Thats not even considering the development part of the project, which technically could fall through even if the sale does occur and the new city market is constructed.
It's easy to discredit other people's opinions by saying they don't care about the other residents, or they're part of an orchestrated event to whip up histeria, or they work for the developer, and maybe I have been a little naive to buy into how the LSJ has been making the deal sound like it won't pass. I freely admit that LMich, Jared, etc. have more experience than me in following developments in general as well as knowing the history of developments in Lansing so I have no problem conceding that your opinion carries more weight than mine on this subject and I am trying to trust the rest of you guys on how unlikely it is this won't pass. But is it really that hard to understand that someone who moved here 8 months ago could be swayed by articles such as this one from today?
I will add that I do think it is a good sign for the development that the council is pushing back the vote.
I have to say I am completely missing the connection between any of the recent comments on here and the idea that what anyone was saying "attracting new residents is raised above keeping those we have"? Other than gentrification, I don't see how this would result from anything anyone has been saying...am I missing something?
Finally, who's not being "transparent and honest" here? I was advised I was being too forthcoming and RandyH stated clearly who he was representing.
More news, but it doesn't seem like any new news. The LSJ keeps saying that the project doesn't appear to have the six votes needed, but as it has been said before, very rarely does council reveal its votes unless they are in near-unanimous disapproval of something, so I don't get why they keep up with this fear-mongering:
It mentions that they have Sandy Allen, Kathie Dunbar and Tim Kaltenbach (not surprising, they side with the mayor on most things). I'm almost certain that Gillespie can peel off Derrick Quinney, and A'Lynne Robinson, which brings us to five. If he can satisfy the concerns of Jeffries, that's the sixth. Carol Wood and Eric Hewitt are always unpredictable, so I would not guess on their vote.
BTW, I was at the market, today. I've noticed that since Eric Hart (current LEPFA director) took over a few years back, the market has been busier than it was. And, it seems they have musical acts or other demonstrations every Saturday, now.
I'm starting to think that maybe City Council is just dragging this out a little longer and saying it's to ask questions, as a way to appease those who are vehemently opposed. So they can eventually pass it and say that they didn't just rush to something and that they didn't just take it on face value. Maybe even to show they don't have to do things on Bernero's timeline, etc.
And to be fair, at least in small part, maybe to actually flush out some answers to the legitimate questions/details about the project. And as impatient as I am to get this going, I can't say that if this is what they're doing, that it's all bad.
You think someone from LSJ has been watching our discussion lately? I believe it was LMich who used the "Chicken little" analogy earlier and here it is in this article:
I've found the LSJ's coverage of this issue leaving much to be desired. What is this, one? The third or fourth rewriting of the same article? In their Sunday editorial written in support of the project, they went out of their way to be rude and antagonistic to the other side of the debate:
I just don't get it. Is it simply not enough to be for the project (as I am), or does the pro-new market side have to also be blatantly nasty towards the opposition? I must say, I've never witnessed such a purposefully acrimonious development debate where the other side was painted as the enemy instead of as the other half of a democratic process, and to watch our paper prematurely calling for the ousting of anyone who votes against this seems to be incredibly irresponsible and needlessly antagonistic.
I genuinely don't understand why our community leaders are so irresponsibly artificially raising the stakes so incredibly high. The very best line and observation in the Sunday story came from Gene Townsend, developer of Printer's Row and the soon-to-be Ottawa @ Butler and Kalamazoo Gateway Projects:
I'm absolutely convinced that the pro and anti sides can, should, and will come together for the construction of a new market. But, I can't for the life of me understand all of the hyperbole from the pro side. It's almost as if they are trying to shoot themselves in the foot and sabotage this thing. Calling for the ousting of council will not make them more susceptible to passing this thing. This is not constructive criticism, at all.
BTW, did anyone else notice in a past story that there is talk that (economy permitting) the Marketplace site may contain a 10-story tower? That was definitely something new, as previous early concepts only showed massings up to four stories. That would be something.
Comments
The opinion piece by the editor I don't agree with. It's not that I don't agree with his concerns, but his ultimate conclusion (I'm not going to support this) didn't seem well thought out.
I was really going to highlight the second article, which displays exactly what I'm talking about. I think the piece was very fair and objective. It raises the side of the debate that we don't hear, here, except when I voiced my concerns. The quote by councilman Hewitt particularly stood out:
“For asking questions we’re being called obstructionists and naysayers,” Hewitt said. “It has nothing to do with whether we support the project or don’t.”
This kind of sums up my responses, here. To me, it looks like the majority of the council is clearly behind this, but the developer and administration seems to be doing everything in their power to be rude and dismissive of people simply asking questions of the project. Aside from the Friends of the City Market, I haven't gotten the impression that the vast majority of the people asking questions about this are against the idea of a new market. I also don't think the developer and administration has been as respectful and transparent as they could be.
If the mayor, the developers, and it's rabid supporters (those that are absolutely astounded that anyone would be asking any tough questions of the developer) continue with their arrogance, they are going to continue to lose trust among the people that make these things happen.
You catch more flies with honey than you do with...well, you know the rest.
As for the weeks delay in the vote, this is good for Mr. Gillespie, in particular.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080808/NEWS01/808080355&s=d&page=1#pluckcomments
I will add that I do think it is a good sign for the development that the council is pushing back the vote.
I have to say I am completely missing the connection between any of the recent comments on here and the idea that what anyone was saying "attracting new residents is raised above keeping those we have"? Other than gentrification, I don't see how this would result from anything anyone has been saying...am I missing something?
Finally, who's not being "transparent and honest" here? I was advised I was being too forthcoming and RandyH stated clearly who he was representing.
City Market sale may lack council votes
It mentions that they have Sandy Allen, Kathie Dunbar and Tim Kaltenbach (not surprising, they side with the mayor on most things). I'm almost certain that Gillespie can peel off Derrick Quinney, and A'Lynne Robinson, which brings us to five. If he can satisfy the concerns of Jeffries, that's the sixth. Carol Wood and Eric Hewitt are always unpredictable, so I would not guess on their vote.
BTW, I was at the market, today. I've noticed that since Eric Hart (current LEPFA director) took over a few years back, the market has been busier than it was. And, it seems they have musical acts or other demonstrations every Saturday, now.
And to be fair, at least in small part, maybe to actually flush out some answers to the legitimate questions/details about the project. And as impatient as I am to get this going, I can't say that if this is what they're doing, that it's all bad.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/NEWS01/808100635
"If members of the Lansing City Council cannot see the best choice here, then it's time for them to leave - voluntarily or through the ballot box."
WTF?!
I just don't get it. Is it simply not enough to be for the project (as I am), or does the pro-new market side have to also be blatantly nasty towards the opposition? I must say, I've never witnessed such a purposefully acrimonious development debate where the other side was painted as the enemy instead of as the other half of a democratic process, and to watch our paper prematurely calling for the ousting of anyone who votes against this seems to be incredibly irresponsible and needlessly antagonistic.
I genuinely don't understand why our community leaders are so irresponsibly artificially raising the stakes so incredibly high. The very best line and observation in the Sunday story came from Gene Townsend, developer of Printer's Row and the soon-to-be Ottawa @ Butler and Kalamazoo Gateway Projects:
Developer Gene Townsend cautioned against pinning the future success of the city on one project....
Discussion has been adversarial from the start, with parties unable to work together toward the common goal of the best plan to improve the market and downtown.
"We're very much a part of the tradition of state government: two political parties that battle it out until one wins," said Townsend, who likes Gillespie's plan but sees parts he'd change.
I'm absolutely convinced that the pro and anti sides can, should, and will come together for the construction of a new market. But, I can't for the life of me understand all of the hyperbole from the pro side. It's almost as if they are trying to shoot themselves in the foot and sabotage this thing. Calling for the ousting of council will not make them more susceptible to passing this thing. This is not constructive criticism, at all.