  Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 44 Registered: 07-2007 |
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20071026/NEWS01/ 710260392 quote: If the parks are already surrounded by empty lots, why would you want to sell the park itself to developers instead of encouraging development on the existing zoned lots? Seems like they didn't see what happened with Fletcher playground: http://download.gannett.edgesu ite.net/detnews/2007/news/0911 playground/index.html | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 246 Registered: 06-2007 |
Wow. Visionary! NEW HOUSES! Nevermind most are gone in that area and haven't been replaced. .... I'd rather live in a house NEXT to a park instead of ON a FORMER park. Leave the park, build around it, and-wow!-higher property values.Make the park the center of the new neighborhood. Let a neighborhood association maintain it. | ||
Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 45 Registered: 07-2007 |
This week: "The city estimates it could get $8.1 million from selling the land." Last week: "Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick said Thursday that he had searched his soul and decided to pay $8 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit against him and the city." Hmmm...I guess they did find something after that long search. | ||
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger Post Number: 481 Registered: 05-2006 |
It’s as if King Kwame is the ultimate scrapper; stripping our poor abandon city of anything that might be left that has any value at all, so that he can buy his next bottle of cheap wine (in his case, maintain his regal lifestyle a while longer. Or, settle his legal problems!). The more Kwame pulls shit like this, the most disgusting it becomes! | ||
Kslice Member Username: Kslice Post Number: 193 Registered: 04-2007 |
They're seeing these4 parks as a problem when they should be seen as an asset. Reinvest in these neighborhoods one at a time. A close park could attract some potential home buyers. Sell some of those city owned "urban prairies" to developers or people who want to build. These parks should be a liability. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1475 Registered: 12-2004 |
The double negative concerns me: "Why do we hang onto something that doesn't produce nothing? It consumes the resources available to the city." | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1866 Registered: 10-2006 |
"The Scripps Park is one of the parks on the city's list. Some have run-down equipment and are in areas where few people use them." Do they have run down eqip. because they are rarely used, or do people rarely use these parks because they have run down eqip.? | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1867 Registered: 10-2006 |
Greatlakes, it says in the article that the money collected from their sale would be put towards improving remaining parks. All, would it not be better to have fewer yet better parks, or a bunch of parks that are crap? A whole bunch of crap is still crap. I think the Mayor's plan seems logical. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 884 Registered: 12-2006 |
If you talk about parks, fire houses, schools or anything publicly operated in a city, the situation in Detroit is the same. When we had over 2 million residents we could afford to support X number of parks (or whatever); now that we are down well below 1 million, we can no longer afford to support so many. You have to do something, other than just sit around and wish things were as they once had been. | ||
Vas Member Username: Vas Post Number: 841 Registered: 01-2004 |
The un-greening of Detroit. Any response from them or the urban farmers? | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 487 Registered: 05-2004 |
The question now becomes, "Who will maintain these parks once the city disowns them?" With so many people not even maintaining their own property, how can the parks be prevented from completely going to hell. It is a great resource for community pride to rally together and make it their own special place. Hopefully, they won't become a dumping ground for dopers and trash. | ||
Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 46 Registered: 07-2007 |
quote: You honestly think they would have said the money is to pay for the lawsuit? Simple math: the city owes 8 million. The city announces a plan that will bring in 8 million. They might spend the 8 million from the sale of parks directly on the other parks, but that means another 8 million is still going to come out of the budget somewhere to pay for the lawsuit. The real kicker is this: "It's unclear what market exists for the land, and no developers are lined up yet, Anwunah said." So, no developers have expressed an interest and there are plenty of vacant lots already around these parks. Sounds like a logical plan indeed. | ||
Sknutson Member Username: Sknutson Post Number: 994 Registered: 03-2004 |
I was surprised to see that a park in Green Acres was listed - Hyde Park, which is noted as a .75 acre park. In a strong neighborhood like Green Acres, wouldn't it be better to encourage the neighborhood to pitch in and help in the maintainance of the park rather than selling it? | ||
Yelloweyes Member Username: Yelloweyes Post Number: 198 Registered: 02-2007 |
I believe the person or company who purchased the park would be responsible for maintaining the park or developing at in accordance with city ordinances. The city selling these parks is kind of like pawning in that old guitar. You need money for rent, but damn you hate to get rid of that old thing that needs just a little TLC. But on the other hand you hardly ever play it anymore. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10600 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The city is self insured. They allocate money to pay for lawsuits and settlements. They come out of different budget line items. While reducing that number would effectively allow the city to move money elsewhere it is still important to note that they are not operating on a single, large pot of money that can go to whatever. quote: Probably a couble edged sword. The neighborhood is an attractive neighborhood that would be improved with the park improving. In the same vein the stability of that area probably makes the plot of land much more marketable and will bring in more revenue than a similar plot in many, many parts of the city. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1256 Registered: 11-2003 |
"wouldn't it be better to encourage the neighborhood to pitch in and help in the maintainance of the park rather than selling it?" ^and how would that be done? When the neighbors dont feel like doing the work then what? The neighbors could maintain the parks now when the city city is slacking but in most cases they don't. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 518 Registered: 07-2007 |
who would buy a park when there are thousands of cheap vacant lots to build on all over Detroit. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 491 Registered: 05-2004 |
Someone with community pride. A person who thinks they can make a difference. | ||
Fishtoes2000 Member Username: Fishtoes2000 Post Number: 337 Registered: 06-2005 |
Note that Michigan cities cannot sell parks unless they are first determined to be surplus in the city's master plan. In some cases, it's a speed bump in the process. In others it might be an opportunity to prevent the sale of parks that are clearly viable and currently used. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 550 Registered: 11-2006 |
Green Acres is a stable area with a fairly active neighborhood group. So I wouldn't be shocked to see them take action and try to save the park. Depending on how it is done and being near UDM I could also see the University or the DCDC getting involved through a neighborhood group. | ||
Hybridy Member Username: Hybridy Post Number: 176 Registered: 08-2006 |
the dequinder cut is being redeveloped, the midtown loop is to begin construction next year, the riverwalk is moving along-it seems that the city is well on its way to develope a greenway system within the city. these spaces are becoming our new parks and show how lifestyles are shifting. these pocket parks seem beneficial only to those living immediately adjacent to them-so return them to neighborhoods and schools. or if so, incorporate them into a larger system that where that act as destination ie:boston's emerald necklace | ||
Hybridy Member Username: Hybridy Post Number: 177 Registered: 08-2006 |
the dequindre cut is being redeveloped, the midtown loop is to begin construction next year, the riverwalk is moving along-it seems that the city is well on its way to develope a greenway system within the city. these spaces are becoming our new parks and show how lifestyles are shifting. these pocket parks seem beneficial only to those living immediately adjacent to them-so return them to neighborhoods and schools. or if so, incorporate them into a larger system that acts as destination ie:boston's emerald necklace | ||
Iaintgotnostyle Member Username: Iaintgotnostyle Post Number: 78 Registered: 10-2007 |
With all the untold vacant land in this city and abandened properties this is by far the dumbest idea this administration has come up with yet. dumb,dumb,dumb | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1547 Registered: 07-2004 |
Detroit grew so fast, with industry put at a premium, that it has few neighborhood parks. In fact, the larger green spaces were turned into factories, which now need significant remediation before they can be used for residential structures. But the parks that we have aren't anywhere near as polluted as the empty lots left by gas stations, lead-painted houses, etc. It seems nothing short of idiotic to sell off these relatively unpolluted parks. I thought it was a good move to demand that new gas stations be built on gas station land -- the rationale being that it's one less brownfield. For the same reasons, this is foolishness -- we should preserve one more greenfield. I mean, maybe in other places you could say I was standing in the way of progress, but -- er -- how many vacant lots do we have in this city? Tens of thousands? And they need to be cleaned up so the city is more environmentally sound. It takes some money but it's worth it. Take a look at formerly industrial cities, like Vancouver, B.C., that are doing wonderful work with remediation, and it's paying off big-time. Maybe it's developers. The area's developers have a reputation for not be interested in in-fill and renovation. They're more the knock-it-down, pump-it-in, slap-it-up, take-your-profit types. I imagine they must slaver at the idea of building big, boxy, cheap new stuff on greenfields. (Message edited by detroitnerd on October 26, 2007) | ||
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey Post Number: 247 Registered: 03-2006 |
Serious question... does anyone use those parks? Ever see kids playing in them? | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5580 Registered: 11-2003 |
Where's FL Olmsted and Sons when we need them? Most cities are way ahead of Detroit in restorations. jjaba, Rouge Park veteran. | ||
Yelloweyes Member Username: Yelloweyes Post Number: 199 Registered: 02-2007 |
It will be interesting to see if the parks sell, considering my neighbors house has been for sale for two years. | ||
Jmarx Member Username: Jmarx Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2005 |
It would be nice if Tiger Stadium was one of the "parks" for sale... :-) | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 1228 Registered: 11-2003 |
They should offer the parks to be sponsored by companies. Naming rights, have employees fix em up and maintain, write off the employees' time, etc. | ||
Kslice Member Username: Kslice Post Number: 194 Registered: 04-2007 |
No that's an ide East_detroit.They could put in some ad benches and stuff. Help the community and the companies. |
