COUNCIL TO VOTE ON TOWNE CENTER
Supporters, detractors agree development plan stalemate has been counterproductive
Since Warren’s current towne center development plan was introduced by Mayor James Fouts and Economic and Downtown Development Director Tom Bommarito in July of 2021, residents both for and against the project have been pushing for the City Council to vote on it.
After six months, the item is finally included on the Jan. 11 Warren City Council regular meeting agenda, not once, but twice.
Council President Patrick Green requested the addition of agenda item 13A proposing that the Council reject the proposed plan; Councilwoman Angela Rogensues’ item, listed as 13G, calls for its approval.
Fouts, who has been actively promoting the towne center proposal, said he submitted a resolution to the City Council more than two months ago, but it was never placed on the agenda.
“I look at it as censorship,” said Fouts. “I believe there should have been a public hearing and a vote taken after. Now, no one from the community can comment. People want a walkable downtown and that is a big part of Warren’s Master Plan. This has something for everyone and will be a winwin for everybody. The Council is trying to destroy the downtown concept and prevent something progressive from taking place.”
Green cites funding methods, specifically the $30 million in bonds for gap funding and what he says is the giving away of city-owned land to developers, as the main reasons he does not support the project as it has been proposed. He insists he is not against development of the 14.7 acres south of Warren City Hall and east of Van Dyke Avenue and in his resolution, encourages the administration to “retool this plan without the use of tax dollars to heavily subsidize the construction of private developments that are not feasible and are out of reach for most residents.”
As presented in July, the towne center project is to be funded by $140 million from developers and $30 million in bonds. The $30 million in bonds is to be offset by funds from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation through its Brownfield Transformational Brown Plan. The Transformational Brownfield experts have pegged it at a minimum of $12 million but it could be as much as $15 million. That would reduce the bonds to between $18 million and $15 million.
“I have stated it clearly on the record that the financing does not work because this is not a public purpose,” said Green. “The administration is asking us
to declare it a public purpose, but it is not.”
Green said he conducted extensive research on the matter including speaking with several Downtown Development Directors nationwide.
“When people pay taxes, they have a reasonable expectation that those funds are going to be spent on something to benefit the community, a public purpose,” said Green. “That can be a park, it can be roads or infrastructure, it can be a city hall or community center. Anything that is a benefit to the public.”
But Fouts argues the project does fit public purpose criteria and is in keeping with the way such projects are funded in many cities, including Detroit. He touts the towne center development plan as a Renaissance opportunity that “will not cost taxpayers a penny.”
“It is legal to have a public-private partnership as long as there is a benefit to the city involved in it and there is a benefit,” said Fouts. “The development will bring $2.5 million in new tax revenue to the city and the taxpayers, create 1,000 construction jobs, and hundreds of new commercial jobs.”
Fouts also said the towne center would be a destination place for residents and would stimulate new development and revitalization “from Eight Mile Road to 14 Mile Road.”
Rogensues, whose resolution calls for approval of the current plan, said there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about the funding plan for the project. Be it through tax abatements, such as the one approved by Council for the logistics development at Nine Mile Road and Hoover Road, or through bonds, many developments in cities across the country are built with financial support of municipalities.
“I don’t necessarily always support the use of public dollars to support private enterprise, but it is the way every stadium, every large development in the country is built and financed,” said Rogensues. “It is either done through abatements or bonding and a partnership with the municipality. It is actually more unusual from the research that I’ve done that you would not have public funding supporting either abatements or financing.”
Rogensues made reference to the Los Angeles Chargers football team, formerly the San Diego Chargers, whose owners opted to move the team to a different city when they were unable to secure $1.5 billion in taxpayer funding via a hotel tax to help fund a new stadium in 2017.
“The bond that is proposed is a loan,” said Rogensues. “It is intended to be paid back. We are not granting money to the developers without the intention that the money will be paid back through tax revenue in the future.”
Most frustrating to Rogensues is the holding pattern in which the town center proposal has been mired for the past six months. Residents, both for and against the project, have spoken about the project during audience participation at every City Council meeting since the project was introduced. A downtown plan is part of the current city master plan, which was approved by Council in January of 2021 and in some form has been part of Warren’s master plan since the 1960s.
“There is some level of responsibility that we have as a body to actually vote on what is put in front of us,” said Rogensues. “Not putting this on the agenda I think is an unfair response to constituents when they deserve to know where people stand on a very large development like a downtown. To just keep kicking the item down the road and not even put it up for a vote is doing our constituents a disservice.”
Whether or not the City Council approves the plan on Tuesday night, Rogensues believes a vote by the council will spur forward movement. Either the current plan will be approved, or it will be nixed and revisions will begin with a new plan to be submitted at a later date.
“People have expressed an interest in having a downtown and while this might not be the exact proposal that everyone agrees upon, but that is the beauty of our democracy is that we get to have discussion and work on something collaboratively that makes the most sense for the people we serve, the city, the financial well being of the city and so far no one has done that,” said Rogensues. “There has just been a deadlock between the administration and City Council and the only people that hurts are the people we are intending to serve.”
Both Green and Rogensues said they would like to see an entertainment component — amphitheater or small indoor entertainment venue — added to the towne center development. Currently, the plan calls for a boutique style hotel on the level of the Townsend in Birmingham; high end condominiums and lofts; and a retail area and commons.
“There is an opportunity and if you don’t like the exact opportunity, then let’s have a conversation about what it could look like and what other people envision it to be,” said Rogensues. “But to simply ignore it, to me, is just unacceptable.”