A conceptual rendering showing the proposed Renaissance Center and East Riverfront project design. Credit: Bedrock
I am one of two elected members of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC), tasked with negotiating the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) for the Renaissance Center and RiverEast project. I was also the sole no vote against the presented CBA for many reasons.
While I could critique the many issues with the CBO process, such as the NAC having no policy assistance, having multiple marathon sessions lasting eight-plus hours in an effort to respond to the developer quicker than they responded back to us, and the fact that we (regular community members) sat across the table from a panel of corporate attorneys from General Motors Co. and Bedrock, I voted no because this deal did not properly speak to Detroiters.
I voted no because Detroiters always deserve more than we get, and this deal is a continuation of the asymmetrical and inequitable balance that is development in Detroit.
Of course the Renaissance Center needs to be reimagined. The owner, GM, has moved out, and the other tenants are following behind. With just a Marriott and a couple of restaurants remaining in the complex, any property owner would be planning what to do next.
Based on GM and Bedrock’s engagement with the community, one would assume that this development would be the pinnacle of co-design. It would be a metric for how public-private partnerships should exist. However, no matter how loud the community chanted, we were offered only the same tangible benefits; nothing about the project changed.
TeRon Haynes, Jr.
By dollar amount, the public money, our tax money, is the second-largest financial contributor to the project, and our money is being spent almost solely to demolish our city’s most notable landmark. Then, throughout the project’s life, GM and Bedrock will get paid back with our sales taxes, and these mega-corporations can contribute their equity at their leisure. The project is operating within a 10-year timeline, but it should be noted that the deadlines are verbal and not contractual.
The risk is too great to gamble with both our money and prime waterfront real estate. To be clear, there is no commitment to build the marina or the movie theater or the observation deck outlined in the benefits agreement; rather, these are verbal commitments with nonbinding language. There is no contribution to public transit even though the project advertises connectivity. The people also demanded it. We have seen no breakdown of construction costs and no range for operating costs. No one has seen a pro forma (the project’s projected cash flows) that is outside the deal. There are no interior images and no construction documents. It is almost as though we are co-signing a huge construction deal without any plans.
We should not have to take “trust me” for an answer.
From the first public presentation of the Renaissance Center and RiverEast project, we were told the towers were coming down. When residents asked why, the answer was simple: just accept it. That was non-negotiable, but everything else would still be on the table for our Community Benefits Agreement.
Over the course of nine weekly CBO meetings, we learned that, in reality, there was a lot that was off-limits.
Even though we presented a robust initial draft, our offer was countered with the creation of a nonprofit entity that committed to none of our demands and only generated more unanswered questions. Because the NAC ultimately did not have the proper resources or time to research and negotiate a proper CBA, City Council must demand due diligence.
The icon, the barrier, the fortress, the symbol — whatever the Renaissance Center was and will become, we need to take a closer look at the details in this proposal. For that reason, I request that the City Council delay this vote to give this project the due diligence it deserves.
Let me make one thing clear: I am for union labor, and I am for development in Detroit, and the council does not have to reject this project. It is not a radical position to ask the council not to sign a blank check. It is what any investor asks before writing a $548 million check. A few more weeks of due diligence now could be the only way we protect our riverfront for the next thirty years.
TeRon Haynes, Jr. is a military veteran, Detroit resident, and community organizer in Detroit and Southeast Michigan. He advocates for social equity across multiple disciplines, primarily through the lens of public health and safety.
Opinion: We should delay GM, Bedrock’s plans for Detroit’s Riverfront
Share this:
I am one of two elected members of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC), tasked with negotiating the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) for the Renaissance Center and RiverEast project. I was also the sole no vote against the presented CBA for many reasons.
While I could critique the many issues with the CBO process, such as the NAC having no policy assistance, having multiple marathon sessions lasting eight-plus hours in an effort to respond to the developer quicker than they responded back to us, and the fact that we (regular community members) sat across the table from a panel of corporate attorneys from General Motors Co. and Bedrock, I voted no because this deal did not properly speak to Detroiters.
I voted no because Detroiters always deserve more than we get, and this deal is a continuation of the asymmetrical and inequitable balance that is development in Detroit.
Of course the Renaissance Center needs to be reimagined. The owner, GM, has moved out, and the other tenants are following behind. With just a Marriott and a couple of restaurants remaining in the complex, any property owner would be planning what to do next.
Based on GM and Bedrock’s engagement with the community, one would assume that this development would be the pinnacle of co-design. It would be a metric for how public-private partnerships should exist. However, no matter how loud the community chanted, we were offered only the same tangible benefits; nothing about the project changed.
By dollar amount, the public money, our tax money, is the second-largest financial contributor to the project, and our money is being spent almost solely to demolish our city’s most notable landmark. Then, throughout the project’s life, GM and Bedrock will get paid back with our sales taxes, and these mega-corporations can contribute their equity at their leisure. The project is operating within a 10-year timeline, but it should be noted that the deadlines are verbal and not contractual.
The risk is too great to gamble with both our money and prime waterfront real estate. To be clear, there is no commitment to build the marina or the movie theater or the observation deck outlined in the benefits agreement; rather, these are verbal commitments with nonbinding language. There is no contribution to public transit even though the project advertises connectivity. The people also demanded it. We have seen no breakdown of construction costs and no range for operating costs. No one has seen a pro forma (the project’s projected cash flows) that is outside the deal. There are no interior images and no construction documents. It is almost as though we are co-signing a huge construction deal without any plans.
We should not have to take “trust me” for an answer.
From the first public presentation of the Renaissance Center and RiverEast project, we were told the towers were coming down. When residents asked why, the answer was simple: just accept it. That was non-negotiable, but everything else would still be on the table for our Community Benefits Agreement.
Over the course of nine weekly CBO meetings, we learned that, in reality, there was a lot that was off-limits.
Even though we presented a robust initial draft, our offer was countered with the creation of a nonprofit entity that committed to none of our demands and only generated more unanswered questions. Because the NAC ultimately did not have the proper resources or time to research and negotiate a proper CBA, City Council must demand due diligence.
The icon, the barrier, the fortress, the symbol — whatever the Renaissance Center was and will become, we need to take a closer look at the details in this proposal. For that reason, I request that the City Council delay this vote to give this project the due diligence it deserves.
Let me make one thing clear: I am for union labor, and I am for development in Detroit, and the council does not have to reject this project. It is not a radical position to ask the council not to sign a blank check. It is what any investor asks before writing a $548 million check. A few more weeks of due diligence now could be the only way we protect our riverfront for the next thirty years.
TeRon Haynes, Jr. is a military veteran, Detroit resident, and community organizer in Detroit and Southeast Michigan. He advocates for social equity across multiple disciplines, primarily through the lens of public health and safety.
Related