A free market proposition
I've brushed over this topic in the past and maybe it's time to revisit it. Someone else already raised it anyway. Why is St. Mary's Church given the exclusive right to sell concessions at the River Raisin Jazz Festival?
I've heard all the arguments about how people get to lounge on their grounds and listen to the music and the proceeds all go to a good cause, but why can't some other concessionaires set up across the river in the city parking lot? I could see a whole lot of booths that would turn the place into a Taste of Monroe fest along with a jazz fest. Sure, there's a chance you might pinch St. Mary's revenues or maybe the K of C beer concession, but there's a big chance a whole lot more people would dump a lot more money with local restaurants if they had small booths along the non-music side of the river.
Last year, there was a guy attending the jazz fest that brought a huge grill and was cooking stuff practically in front of the stage. If he could have gotten a brat or ribs or a burger from a concessionaire, would have dragged all that stuff to St. Mary?
The downtown business network should get with the tourism bureau on this and come up with a pilot program.
BTW, do not be afraid to register and post comments on this blog. Though it now is moderated, I still won't know precisely who you are. Also, be aware that your posts now will be delayed, so they only will appear after I have a chance to moderate them. That's the real downside, but the tradeoff is worth it, I think.
Also, a previous commenter was critical of me, I think, for pretending to be "neutral" but having some obvious bias. That's too funny! If I wanted to be neutral, I wouldn't have this blog. I have all sorts of biases and this is a way for me to share them with the world.
I've heard all the arguments about how people get to lounge on their grounds and listen to the music and the proceeds all go to a good cause, but why can't some other concessionaires set up across the river in the city parking lot? I could see a whole lot of booths that would turn the place into a Taste of Monroe fest along with a jazz fest. Sure, there's a chance you might pinch St. Mary's revenues or maybe the K of C beer concession, but there's a big chance a whole lot more people would dump a lot more money with local restaurants if they had small booths along the non-music side of the river.
Last year, there was a guy attending the jazz fest that brought a huge grill and was cooking stuff practically in front of the stage. If he could have gotten a brat or ribs or a burger from a concessionaire, would have dragged all that stuff to St. Mary?
The downtown business network should get with the tourism bureau on this and come up with a pilot program.
BTW, do not be afraid to register and post comments on this blog. Though it now is moderated, I still won't know precisely who you are. Also, be aware that your posts now will be delayed, so they only will appear after I have a chance to moderate them. That's the real downside, but the tradeoff is worth it, I think.
Also, a previous commenter was critical of me, I think, for pretending to be "neutral" but having some obvious bias. That's too funny! If I wanted to be neutral, I wouldn't have this blog. I have all sorts of biases and this is a way for me to share them with the world.
posted by The Observer at 7/31/2007 09:13:00 AM
16 Comments:
I believe that if a tent were to be set up so that local restaurants could showcase their menus, then it should be allowed. I don't believe that "out of the area" vendors should be able to come in and compete with our locals, simply because this event should showcase and support our local businesses.
I also think that beer and wine should be allowed in the tennis court area. If SMCC is not willing to take the free money out there, then perhaps our local non profits should be given an opportunity. The area would be separated from the general public, so what is the harm. Other cities have alcohol with little problems, so why not Monroe? Do we have worse drinkers?
Maybe we do have worse drinkers.
We sure seem to have issues with running a Blog without having a meltdown.
I don’t understand how St Mary’s would have exclusive rights for vending to the event. They do have a natural advantage with being close to the site. I have always wondered why they are the only subsidized Church in Monroe with a city maintained parking lot and a marked off Jaywalking zone across Elm Street. I have spent many an uncomfortable moment stopped in the middle of the Monroe Street intersection waiting to get hit because of people Jay-walking to church against the lights. Maybe it is true that most decisions in Monroe are made in the first three pews of St Mary’s.
Would there be any ramifications to holding a Taste of Monroe Festival in the Finzel lot with the Jazz Festival? Can’t the evil DMBN, Mainstreet Monroe, or DDA get that going? Doesn’t seem too hard. Probably they (the first 3 pews of St Mary’s) would say there is not enough parking to close the lot.
Please explain this first three rows at St. Mary's church comment. I have heard this before and wonder where this comes from and who you may be speaking of. I believe the only money going to this church is from the church goers. Subsidized? Why, because they are across from a public lot? Is the RRCA subsidized because they are next to a lot? Is the Masonic Temple subsidized because it sits in front of a lot?
Who said that no one else could set up vending booths? Mr. Patterson?
Evil DMBN? Are you calling all of the downtown businesses evil?
While the newly instituted censorship puts a substantial onus on the keeper of this free no cost blog to be fair, the site is still open to abuse and it is all up to the observers as to how handle abuses vs. critical comment not to his or her liking. There proof that who ever loaded a site that was taking cheap shots at many decent citizens in our community complete with fowl language, is demented or nuts is unfair. The information overload just may have been a reaction to uncontrolled abuse and libel. The next requirement is for each poster to be required to use their true identity if the observer wishes to be fair with all persons wishing to post. Otherwise it is just commentary acceptable to the observer.
City Resident,
I am also not sure of the origin or the validity of the first three rows at St Mary’s church comment. I have heard it from many different sources around town, and frankly it may be a bit of a cliché. I honestly couldn’t tell you what councilmember’s or city employees are members of St Mary’s, or who would be reputed to sit in the first three rows. I think the saying just alludes to the perception around town that some deals are done behind closed doors long before public comment time at the council meetings are held.
Please don’t read into this that I think this is the case. I have always found our public officials and city agents to be very responsive and open to discussing issues. I’m not saying back door deals don’t happen, but I don’t think they are the rule. The exception to this around town is the Monroe Historical Society where nothing is done in the open, but we are not talking about them.
Yes – by subsidized I mean the parking lot. My church has to pay for their parking lot. The city holds them to given standards for any improvements that are made. St Mary’s on the other hand gets theirs at taxpayer’s expense. By far the highest usage of the lot is during times when Mass’s are being held.
How about putting some meters into the lot that are active during church times only, Saturday Afternoons, Evenings, and Sunday mornings? Could be a new revenue stream. Time the meters so each member coming to mass must feed a minimum of 0.25 into the meter. I wonder what the payback time for this would be.
Also it is clearly dangerous that someone at the city painted a formal pedestrian crossing across Elm Ave so people using the lot to go to Church wouldn’t have to walk the 10 yards down to the crossing. Someone is going to get clobbered over this sometime in the future. It is an unnecessary and an unsafe condition.
The evil DMBN comment is a legacy comment from the John Iacoangelli administration when he declared outright war on the DMBN and the downtown business owners. I don’t think that the DMBN is evil, and I have great respect for the downtown business owners. However, there is a faction around town the does consider this group and some business and property owners as evil, and our Ex-Mayor was among this group.
Can someone please explain to me this bias?
Roundybout.
Roundy:
My guess is that Iaco and most others around town don't as a whole consider downtown business owners evil. I have heard criticisms of some downtown business owners and praise of others and it seems to depend mainly on who their political friends are. There also are some downtown business owners who mind their own business and don't have time or desire to even interact with city hall or politicos. They're sort of neutral territory. I'd name them here, but that might put a jinx on them. Most long-time observers can figure out who they are anyway.
I can guess who Iaco may feel are the evil of downtown.
The Beneteau's
The Paisley's
Janet Berns
The Martins
Ken Wickenheiser
In other words, the people who have tried their best to make downtown a viable community, the property owners.
You may not like their ideas or their buildings, or their comments, but actions do speak louder then words.
What is it that these people, or any downtown for that matter, have done wrong? They speak up for their rights as taxpayers and property owners, just as any neighborhood group would, or should. If you don't like what they do, then buy up some of the vacant property around and lead by example. But, don't use taxpayer money to try and compete with them, ala United Furniture.
There are some who mind their own business and don't care what happens to downtown, and they are called attorneys, who get their fees regardless of whether the buildings surrounding them are full. Then there are the renters of downtown who make their opinions known as to what they feel is right for downtown. What do they know. They rent and could care less about anything but their political aspirations. They can always up and move if their ideas are wrong. The property owners are in for the long haul. That would be like the owners of property downtown going into the historic neighborhoods and telling them what color they should paint their houses. If they don't have any financial interests, like the above named persons do, then they should not have a vote. All of the property owners' voices should be heard, above the opinions of the appointed spokespeople who own nothing, or whose companies own the property.
And while we're at it, let's only let property owners vote?
Our history does point out that IACO, bless his heart, did involve himself in frontal attack on the DMBN over the parking ticket validation issue. He may have been advised by the same legal staff that advised Dr. Nixon to stick with acceptable Islamic foot washing music and prayer chants and leave Jingle Bells out of the music allowed. Perhaps these are some of the players in our present closely held Historic Society. For the required DMBN loyalty oath go to:
http://www.historicmonroe.org/offer-dmbn-had-to-refuse.htm
I understand some of our finest councilpersons with keen noses for pollution and unearned money feel that the First Amendment is for those who may not agree with them to hide behind. During the McCarthy era it was the Fifth Amendment that many citizens wished done away with. Perhaps we have a lesson on needing to use our freedoms to avoid losing them.
This blog appears to run smoothly with censorship of comments. Anyone with a simple computer program or macro could have loaded it with random comments to put a stop to the personal attacks with no effort through an automated process. Some of those you think nut cases just might be smarter in the technology you dabble in and not a bit crazy.
Would you want to have someone tell you how to fix your property?
No one said they should be the only ones to vote, but they should be able to do what they wish with their own property. They should have the respect of their elected officials. There should not be personal vendettas just because you don't like to answer tough questions. They do pay taxes. I guess if they didn't have to pay tax, and the money they use to fix their buildings was all grant money, and the city brought in tenants, then they could be told what to do. As it is right now, there is an exodus from downtown and no new investors. Look what happened to the company which wanted the building next to the old theater. Look at what hoops anyone who wants to buy a building has to hop through. I hear that the city even gave a hard time to the people who want to buy the old Elks building and renovate it. Jump through the historic hoops. Government intervention is not a good thing, because most of the time, the people making the decisions don't have any financial interest, only an overpriced job to have to try and justify.
The saga of the United Furniture building and the Eichbauer-Kuster monument works is one that most are familiar with. Perhaps it is time to abolish the Port Commission and DDA although the council’s vote to require their approval of property purchases may limit future abuses
The ZBA voted unanimously to stop government interference in monument works façade removal. My vote was based on amendment five because the HDC was taking property use without compensation.
I am unaware of what is occurring with the old Elks hall. Let me guess…
The present owner or option holder wishes to convert into an RM use. Now what is the rest of the story?
Mr. Smith:
Interesting comment on the Eichbauer building, but my info is that the prospective buyer didn't have the resources to do what he planned to do and the facade matter was just a convenient excuse for him to back out of the deal.
Also, as to your comment about a simple macro to post random comments -- whether it was automatic, manual or supernatural, it still was the work of a nutjob.
Dear Observer,
What the Eichbauer appellant wished to do did not make sense to me. In conversation with Jeff Green a buyer could have a tax advantage in restoring the entire structure. A ZBA is not required to do an extensive investigation of any appeal but it is often the decent thing to do. The option to build an infill structure made sense, and had I been able to contact him I would have suggested that option.
In my judgment, the structure needs extensive structural improvements to the facade. There is evidence of removal of load bearing members from the facade. Thus the “leave alone and maintain” admonition in the 1981 façade study probably was not followed and a loss of support as evidenced by a progressive failure is occurring. Even so, ownership of this structure would permit the owner to obtain a permit and demolish it just as First National Bank and Kline’s was demolished.
You obviously know more about this matter than I have reason to know. Anyone wishing a copy of the 1981 façade study is welcome to download it in PDF format from www.historicmonroe.org
There is some truth, like it or not, to the fact that St. Mary's (and it's members) do still control many of the positions of power in Monroe. Do the decisions benefit the Church and School? Yes, of course they do - isn't this what alumni and church members do, help each other?
Does that mean that it is unseemly - maybe, I don't know, I am not a member. I do know that SMCC / St. Mary's does have a lock on the concessions - sad.
RRCA is subsidized, is it not? Masonic Temple - moved to Dixie Hwy.
City Resident - I don't believe Mr. Paisley is a property owner. I also noticed that you left out the Beka family - how come? I think that most people, myself included, agree with many of the decisions that the Beneteau, Martin and Wickenheiser(s) have made. I do find Ms. Berns to be annoying in terms of harping on people not shopping downtown yet, her business is never open late. Oh, well.
The idea, or logic, that only those who own property have a stake is part of the problem. Remember if you will that those folks also make money off of us and at some point, the customer is always right - true?
I think the reason those mentioned get the attention that the do is because they put themselves out there, for good or bad. Notice, you left out the Beka family along with the guy that owns flashback guitars and the new owners of the cake shop. Why? Simple - they stay out of the fray and simply do business.
So Alacajun,
The Bica's and the new owner of Flashback Guitar building as well as the new cake shop are better property owners because they do not get involved and do not speak their mind? Where do you live, in a cave where you are happy with having others make decisions about your property? Do you sit back and let others get involved for you? I think by your postings that you are not that type of person.
Cityresident:
No they are not "better" property owners nor did I say or imply that they were. My point was that they, unlike the propery owners that you named, do not put themselfs out there and simply do business. As such, they suffer no public ridicule and appear to still be doing decent business (unlike Urban Concepts).
Post a Comment
<< Home