Personally, I've never much minded this bridge. I've been more concerned about replacing the more heavily used old railbridge linking both halves of Riverfront Park with something more fitting for Lansing's premier festival park. I'd like to see something similar to the pedestrian bridge that crosses the Thames in London, or the cool one in Redding, California. With an amazing view of Lansing's riverfront and skyline, it'd be a landmark and postcard worthy.
It's funny, I remember when the old railbridge only had the small plankway tacked on to the southern side of the bridge open to pedestrians because the rail side either hadn't yet been torn up, or was still in use. I can't even imagine if it was still this way during say Common Ground, because even during festivals back then swamped the bridge.
City Council is holding up the Armory and Marketplace projects over the inclusion of PLA's. I'm sure that one way or another the projects will proceed, despite this setback. It seems as if it should be a non-issue as the City Attorney has stated that a PLA would be illegal. I just hope the council doesn't get to hung up on this.
I am against PLA's personally, I believe that if unionized workers can't compete with non-union workers than the unions must not be worthwhile.
Does anyone have details regarding the negotiations between the Gillespie Group and the unions? I am absolutely in favor of this development (and the Armory) moving forward. I have met the Gillespies and spoken with them about their plans, and I believe that they are genuine in their professed hoped to move Lansing forward. They grew up in the neighborhood where I live now, and they are willing to invest in these tough times. However, I am also a supporter of local union labor. Honestly, I don't understand why certain council members and local labor groups are so adamant that these programs stall... If the Gillespie Group truly wants to help Lansing, then the construction jobs will be local jobs. And I trust that this is the case. So, are these issues purely financial, or are there other forces in play? (timelines, quality of construction materials, etc)?
I don't mean to make the site too political; most of us have the same goals. But, with council seats at stake, I want to be informed. I am willing to work to remove obstructionist council members if they are playing a political games. If they are trying to secure local jobs, then the issue gets more complicated. Can anyone speak to this issue?
I'm very much in the same boat as you. I see both sides of this, and consider myself pretty equally pro-labor and pro-development. I believe that when you come asking for public assistance of any type (and especially when you are and have begged for MILLIONS in incentives and deferred taxes from the city), you can't be surprised when those controlling the incentives make certain reasonable requests of you, and I've been taken a bit aback by the indignation and arrogance shown by Gillespie, himself, and his sympathizers. A bit more humility in how one responds to these requests would go a very, very long way in Gillespie gaining sympathy from folks like myself. I've just been a bit shocked by this millionaire(?) developer being made out to be some kind of victim, martyr, or pauper. If a PLA would ruin this project, I think it's incumbent upon him to show exactly how it would. The very least he could do is price the project with and without a PLA. The public shouldn't just take the word of anyone; a need needs to be shown. The study of a PLA would be good for both sides, because I too am interested in whether this is just about wages and/or work rules and such.
All that said, legally, the council is just begging to be sued, here, and they are breaking a binding promise. The development agreement clearly states that the council is required to support any incentives Gillespie can ferret out of them. This was the wrong project to try and make an example of a developer. And, obviously, someone on the council is a hypocrite, because for the project to get as far as it has it means that at least one of the council members that voted against the brownfield designation, last night and the week before, originally voted FOR the project when it was brought to them a few years back. I'd like to figure out who it was.
Finally, not anyone against this project can even justify why the council passed the brownfield designation for the Knapps redevelopment, last night, but continued to deny Gillespie's request for his project brownfield. That just stinks of some kind of personal grudge and that's exactly what we DON'T need on the council. I can understand Quinney and Wood's denial of the request; they've either explained it or we know the reason. Jeffries and especially Hewitt owe the citizens of Lansing a detailed explanation of why they voted against the brownfield (and why at least one of them originally voted for the project).
I too would love to see these projects move forward, but also would like the labor to be as local as possible. It would be nice for Gillespie to try to use lansing area contractors wherever possible. I really dont care if they are union or not.
I have written councilman Hewitt about the vote from two weeks ago, and have yet to receive a response. I am very curious of his reasons, and it would go a long way as to my decision on whether to retain him as my representative.
I am in support of requiring a said amount of local labor on a project (not 100% though, as some projects may require a small number of highly specialized workers that may not be available locally). I also support requiring that all workers be paid a particular minimum wage on a project. I do not, and will not support the requirement of union labor though, unions tend to be too political and self-righteous. If your requiring a living wage you just essentially accomplished the same purpose as a union. Besides, most skilled workers (plumbers, pipefitters, electricians, steelworkers, HVAC, etc...) who do commercial projects will be unionized regardless.
This wasn't a surprise. The council was on rocky legal ground, and knew it. The irony, or at least what gets lost, in all of this is that Gillespie wasn't rushing to get this done. When this first came up a few months back he was very evasive about when exactly he planned to start it. The development agreement stipulated that it had to start 15 months after the completion of the City Market, but I'm sure he was going to argue what the definition of "start" was. lol
Anyway, good news. If the council wants try and attach demands to projects in which they offer incentives for, they have to do it at the beginning of the process.
I think (IMO) Kathie said it best when she reminded Jeffries that the council acted in breach of their contract with Gillespie and damages awarded by the court should they lose wouldn't be covered by their insurance policy.
Comments
It's funny, I remember when the old railbridge only had the small plankway tacked on to the southern side of the bridge open to pedestrians because the rail side either hadn't yet been torn up, or was still in use. I can't even imagine if it was still this way during say Common Ground, because even during festivals back then swamped the bridge.
City Council is holding up the Armory and Marketplace projects over the inclusion of PLA's. I'm sure that one way or another the projects will proceed, despite this setback. It seems as if it should be a non-issue as the City Attorney has stated that a PLA would be illegal. I just hope the council doesn't get to hung up on this.
I am against PLA's personally, I believe that if unionized workers can't compete with non-union workers than the unions must not be worthwhile.
I don't mean to make the site too political; most of us have the same goals. But, with council seats at stake, I want to be informed. I am willing to work to remove obstructionist council members if they are playing a political games. If they are trying to secure local jobs, then the issue gets more complicated. Can anyone speak to this issue?
All that said, legally, the council is just begging to be sued, here, and they are breaking a binding promise. The development agreement clearly states that the council is required to support any incentives Gillespie can ferret out of them. This was the wrong project to try and make an example of a developer. And, obviously, someone on the council is a hypocrite, because for the project to get as far as it has it means that at least one of the council members that voted against the brownfield designation, last night and the week before, originally voted FOR the project when it was brought to them a few years back. I'd like to figure out who it was.
Finally, not anyone against this project can even justify why the council passed the brownfield designation for the Knapps redevelopment, last night, but continued to deny Gillespie's request for his project brownfield. That just stinks of some kind of personal grudge and that's exactly what we DON'T need on the council. I can understand Quinney and Wood's denial of the request; they've either explained it or we know the reason. Jeffries and especially Hewitt owe the citizens of Lansing a detailed explanation of why they voted against the brownfield (and why at least one of them originally voted for the project).
I have written councilman Hewitt about the vote from two weeks ago, and have yet to receive a response. I am very curious of his reasons, and it would go a long way as to my decision on whether to retain him as my representative.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20101025/NEWS01/310250014/-1/rss13
The judge says the Gillespies lived up to their end of the bargain. Is it a dead issue? Or, do we need further clarification?
Anyway, good news. If the council wants try and attach demands to projects in which they offer incentives for, they have to do it at the beginning of the process.
I think (IMO) Kathie said it best when she reminded Jeffries that the council acted in breach of their contract with Gillespie and damages awarded by the court should they lose wouldn't be covered by their insurance policy.