interesting, where are the comments from yesterday? clearly this project is not in the publics best interest

$ounds like $thatkis and company already made their minds up before the board meeting, as per usual. What's that $thathakis likes to say, "Business as usual is not an option." Well, this sounds an awful lot like, Business as usual to me.

I forget how the conservative Republican thinking goes: Big government is bad and small government is good? Is that it? Or is it the other way around? Cause I feel like I heard a lot of "Smaller government!" cries from the Regan-lovers before the election.

Or is the conservative Republican modus operandi simply, "Claim big government is bad and small government is good while sticking the taxpayer with a million dollar golf course bill."

Or wait, I remember now. The Republican creed is always, Help big business at any cost. Yup, giving a million dollar break on rent to a private company on public land seems about right for these Neo-Cons. It's not like the Township needs $200,000 a year in rent to help us through these tough financial times.... Don't forget to do as your told. and Vote Republican.

Re last night's Board Meeting: I watched a few minutes of Mr. Stathakis evading a direct question about the $125,000 rent. Instead of answering the question he went on and on about journal entries to the Capital fund and reversing journal entries to this budget and that budget. Folks, it is not that complicated: last year Cherry Creek wrote us a check for $125,000 and we deposited it in the bank account and after last night’s decision by Shelby’s Board that is not going to happen anymore. You don’t think Mr. Cherry Creek put on that self-serving presentation to stop Shelby Township from writing journal entries do you? No, it was all about keeping their cash in their pockets.
I also watched Mr. Stathakis’s remarks that the golf course land was vacant and not being put to good use until Cherry Creek came along and that he was going to make sure that he extracted as much revenue out of Shelby’s resources. In my opinion, another word for “vacant” public land is a park and his philosophy for squeezing as much money out of Shelby’s resources ought to concern Shelby’s citizens. What next, let Walmart open a supercenter at River Bends so that Shelby can get in the grocery store business in 60 years? How about a logging operation. Is that okay as long as we line the pockets of the politically connected?

The bottom line is simple: Cherry Creek is not going to pay us over a $1,000,000 in rent that they promised us. This is the second time Cherry Creek has reneged on their commitment to Shelby residents (most recently in 2010, three years ago) and their promises that they are going to make up for this eight years in the future are not believable. For more than 60 years the Cherry Creek investors will collect their profits without paying any property taxes but still be protected by the Shelby police and fire departments that the rest of us paid for. Nor will Cherry Creek investors contribute one penny to the education system in this community.
Shelby voters may not be able to do anything about the Shelby Board for 4 years, but they can express their displeasure with Cherry Creek a lot sooner than that: they can vote with their pocketbooks. I see no reason why any golfer or other group connected with Utica Schools or any other group dependent on tax revenues or paying taxes would let a dime of their money go to the Cherry Creek scofflaws.

You just got robbed again suckers...

I'm not sure these comments are correct. The rent is deffered. If you rent a house and the tenant says he will put in hard wood floors that cost 1300 dollars in exchange for defering a rent payment of 1000 dollars, the landlord might go for it. This enhances the property and saves the landlord 300 dollars. The tenant then pays 2000 dollars in rent in the future because the new floors enhanced the property.
I understand some complaints but this really does seem like aa win for the landlord (us, the taxpayers). I no longer golf and I can't afford to eat at Cherry Creek any longer but one of the top 3 reasons new businesses give for relocating to Shelby is Cherry Creek Golf Course and I love new business with new jobs to go with them.
Cherry Creek is a public golf course, not private.... And it makes and pays money every year into a Shelby Township asset.... The club house is owned by Shelby Township, we are leasing it out, as landlords would.

I educate myself on the issue and try to look at this from a taxpayers point of view. I was against it until I found out more facts, now I am neutral on this, not exactly sold on it but I now see the logic of the board going for it.
At least I use my name to allow you to flame me, I don't hide behind alias's and whine like a wuss.

We need a common sense leader in Shelby Twp. Not a politician who refuses to answer questions and/or does whatever he pleases despite the will of the citizens that voted him in.

I guess they were too ashamed to show their faces. I guess deadbeats and freeloaders can be embarrassed.
Did anyone notice all the empty chairs behind Mr. Cherry Creek Tuesday night? If you are a regular viewer of Board meetings when the Board awards contracts and the Planning Commission discusses requests from developers you will see people in those first two rows of chairs: developers, their attorneys, etc. The usually have to stand up, identify themselves and their address. On Tuesday night’s meeting re the Cherry Creek petition only one guy stood up and was identified but didn’t give his address so we don’t even know if he lives in Shelby Township. You would think if the Cherry Creek investors were asking for more than a million dollars from Shelby taxpayers they would at least show up at the Board meeting and tell us who they were. Neither at the meeting or the Cherry Creek website do we know any of the people on the Cherry Creek Board of Directors or the owners of Golf Facilities, Inc., the Cherry Creek management company. Does anyone know if any of the Board of Trustees (or family members) are financial beneficiaries of the Cherry Creek profits? It would be nice if the Board would disclose the names of the Cherry Creek Directors but I noticed that Shelby’s Board didn’t do that: what’s the big secret?

Sweetheart tax deal for Cherry Creek enterprise!
1) This tax deal is front loaded with tax payer money while 75%+ of the promised glitzy improvements don't even break ground until 2016
2) Plus the Board failed miserably here to be the steward of tax dollars as 'present value' of all cash flows was obviously never addressed:
... Simply stated, Present Value analysis determines the real value today of cash flows (in this case negative cash flows from tax losses) and future expenses (in this case capital improvements) to measure a net decision in today's dollars. The same principle also should assess depreciation of improvements to each asset, its realistic life expectancy and proforma value (in this case) 8 years out
This was clearly NOT done as part of this decision and would have cast a totally different light on the math. A special SHAME ON YOU MR. FLYNN, for allowing this to happen. You were the lesser of bad choices in the last election but clearly haven't a clue on how to conduct a detailed financial analysis where future cash flows and depreciation are involved and discounted back to today's dollars. Perhaps the Township should let him continue to announcing youth events for the next 4 years and hire a specialist for big decisions in the future.
We, the taxpayers of Shelby, were really railroaded on this decision through a shell game of presenting how allusive buckets of money are moved around and really doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. Really?????

One other point- No expense accounting over the next 8 years??

They (Our Board) say that there is no need to have the operator/management enterprise overseeing Cherry Creek to account to Shelby Township for any of the expenses related to promised improvements over the next 8 years. Why? Because they say it is the operator's money being spent and not the taxpayers?
Wow... this is even better than the shell game in their presentation where capital budgets were interchanged with operating budgets, concluding no money was being spent by tax payers while tons of improvements were being realized.
I, for one, would like to see a progress report each year which shows how this $1,300,000 tax gift is being offset by real expenses -- verified and audited by an independent auditor. Seems pretty reasonable to me as my back of the napkin calculations suggest we pay out over $550,000 in first three years (discounted cash flows back to today) and receive at best $200,000 in improvements using their own improvement plan and timeline to make this assertion. An expense audit would surely keep the stewards of our eggs doing a better job watching the henhouse. Novel idea Mr Flynn and Mr. Stathakis?

Final comment... Our Board says Cherry Creek operators are taking all the risk!

Really? They are obviously a whole lot smarter than the folks on our Board if they got them to really believe that. Here is the logic: The 'Operators' get free, front-loaded money through waiving of taxes and no financial controls on how/when the free money is spent; thus giving them exactly the opposite effect-- No risk at all! They will get somewhere in the neighborhood of $550,000 (PV adjusted) over first three (3) years of this deal that they can basically spend or not spend at their discretion. Certain categories of expense like redecorating/modernizing banquet rooms (in their short-term plan) actually gives them significant accelerated depreciation options to further enhance their bottom line in these early years. I will take that deal any day of the week. Give me someone else's money to use at no cost, so I can improve my house, rent it out, optimize depreciation and then give it back to you in the future after I have stripped all the value out. Not quite as simple as this, but the gist of the message is solid. So back to Mr Flynn and Mr. Stathakis; did someone pull the shell game over on you before you passed the shells to us?

You, I and Ron Churchill could have got up in front of the Board the other night masqueraded as the three blind mice complete with matching orange hats and the Board would have not taken notice that there was a chorus of dissent to their vote.
If this was a Public Company, Sarbanes-Oxley would keep them in check as the threat of being hauled off is a bigger motivator than what shareholders (Tax payers in this parallel example) think. That is why due diligence at the corporate level has swung the pendulum 180 degrees in the last 10 years... not because CEO's have aligned themselves with the moral right. They simply don't want real bad consequenses. So the system does seem to work.
Here, what is needed is broader media exposure to these kind of decisions. Just think if a Channel 7 News Investigator, acting on a tip, showed up in front of the Township offices and began to ask questions about a very specific decision that just shelled out $1,300,000 of taxpayer money over 8 years while at the same time, defended that there is no accountability required for these expenses ...and oh Yes, the back of the napkin has all the details of the plan.
I am not a betting person, but I would guess you would see a whole lot of back pedaling and revisiting whatever napkins were used to construct this sweetheart deal. Media exposure always wins the day much more than what us lowly taxpayers think (I'll speak for myself at least on this last point).
Just a next step thought of course.

Still might not matter. These people have spent the last four years defending themselves against all kinds of things. Lawsuits, criminal investigations, various expose's in the media, what have you. They were still re-elected because the majority of Shelby residents don't pay enough attention to real life, and fall for the propaganda and character assasination of their opponents that show up in mailboxes at election time. Eventually the same thing that happened to Kilpatrick in his second term may happen here. One can only hope.

Lets be realistic, no politician in their right state of mind would ever vote in favor of this, unless they were receiving money, campaign contributions, or money under the table

And anybody who disagrees, can LMBH. The whole board is out of their mind. The only one who has a anything worthwhile to say/do is mr. Nightingale.

After listening to Byron state that he pays half million dollars a year to the bank, I did further reaserch to find out that the 1.6 million dollars are being borrowed from the bank, and they are borrowing the money for renovations to keep themselves afloat, and that if they walk away from the project, a lean will be placed on the assets, and then whose going to pay it? The tax payers?

Please.... on the Nightingale comment... This guy is a tow truck driver with a grudge in one hand and our pocketbook in his other hand. He is on this board to be vengeful, win a lawsuit against all of us and to get his towing contract back so he/they can continue milking the Township Dairy, like they had for many years. Granted he voted no the other night on Cherry Creek... but he did it from the position of pure ignorance with a clueless look on his face as to why he was even present in the room

Here is how I look at it... You either sue the Township and follow that course of action if you feel you have been wronged.... OR ... you run for public office and try to change the system that created the alleged injustice. But you can't have it both ways. Otherwise you are the fox in the hen house-- which he is!.
In my opinion, the right thing he should have done when taking the "oath of office" and promising by that oath to put the interests of Shelby first, is to have given up his lawsuit. If you are suing the same people , at the same time you are trying to be their steward, I guess I am at a loss as to how impartial behavior rules the day That is my only beef with the guy.

Imagine any other level of government where you could be on both sides of the fence at the same time without the media and public going ballistic:
- What if Rick Snyder owned the Ambassador Bridge and became governer only to lobby against a competitive bridge the day he got into public office or...
- What if Mitt Romney won the presidency and requested a bailout of Staples, the company he has significant stock in and just happened to co-found?
- How does that really differ (other than scale) from Nick Nightingale suing the Township for breach of contract while getting elected to represent and sue the same folks from his Trustee position?
I still feel (in my gut) that the vast majority of taxpayers in the Township do not know this lawsuit is active, and what this guy will gain if his case wins, all while collecting a salary paid for by all of us. Even if he loses the suit taxpayer dollars are being used (my understanding at least) to defend this case, so the taxpayer really gets stiffed either way.

Another thread that started off as a serious discussion is being hijacked with silliness. Someone needs to get a life.

Lots of good points up top. What is the thought on Shelby taking over the golf course as part of parks and recreation? Any takers?

Why???? Per our own Shelby Board, it sounds like no Southeast Michigan municipalities are successful in running this kind of business. I say stick to what one does best!

In the case of the Township they are best at letting someone else run a business and rely on collecting taxes... so "collect away" instead of giving it way on a promise and a prayer.

I'll gladly pay you Thursday for a hamburger today!!

Sarah,you cant change stupid,so I wont try with you,shame on you for disrespecting
Mr Nitengale,I live in Shelby and hope he wins his lawsuit,he is an honorable business man,he is young intelligent and will go far......

Was this deal made in the best interest of the taxpayers of Shelby?
I didn’t think so either.

I understand that while some board members wanted the deferral shortened to 5 years the response from the bank was that they "preferred an 8 year deferral". So the board caved and agreed to the 8 years. This doesn't make sense. If the bank said they required an 8 year deferral then I might have agreed but they only "preferred an 8 year deferral". It was really Golf Facility Inc. that wanted the 8 year deferral and an extension on the end of the existing lease agreement to make it last at least another 40 years. This will allow existing members of their aging investment group to sell their shares to younger investors. That is why this deal was done.