How else to interpret the opinion piece about Cobo Hall renovations from Detroit City Council president Monica Conyers that appeared in the Freep?

Ms. Conyers dislikes a number of things about the "current state legislation regarding the renovation and expansion of Detroit's Cobo Hall." She says it "is a complete lose-lose situation for the City of Detroit and its residents" and that there "are a myriad of problems within the law that came out of Lansing, but my primary concern is that Detroit stands to gain absolutely nothing."

What are these problems?

"The newly created authority established to oversee Cobo would be made up of five people -- one each appointed by Oakland County, Wayne County, Macomb County, the State of Michigan and Detroit's mayor. Each member is allowed one vote, and each has the ability to veto anything that may come before them."

The horror, the horror. Who would do such a thing?

Ms. Conyers gives us a clue:

"I also have concerns about the way the deal was done, without any input from the City Council, and how an initial provision that would employ "Detroiters first" was taken out of the final legislation. This is a feat that Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson touted as a victory for his county in his most recent State of the County address."

She has other concerns, but what I take away from the above is the following:

1. The representatives of each entity on the Cobo Hall authority board have unilateral power to put the brakes on any plan that they deem will adversely affect their taxpayers.

2. The governing rules of the authority were modified so that the most cost-effective contractors and workers available throughout the region -- rather than just those who happen to live in the city -- will have a better chance of getting the work if any regional funding for renovation is ultimately approved.

3. L. Brooks Patterson is somehow responsible for insisting upon these stipulations.