  Boynamedsue Member Username: Boynamedsue Post Number: 22 Registered: 03-2005 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20071030/NEW S01/71030038/1001/NEWS&GID=lsT 8Oh10bAKHWRsANlSdoN91ic3z+YtEU ln7w1buDqg%3D I'm glad that they approved it, but why the hell would four members vote against it? | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 617 Registered: 04-2006 |
"A main point of criticism had been the lease’s length. It is a 30-year lease with two automatic 30-year renewals, unless the council decides to discontinue the lease when they expire at the end of those 30-year intervals." i still agree with you, boynamedsue (yeah, CASH)... their "reason" is maybe moot... but that does seem to be the "why" | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10619 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: They also approved turning over operations of the Zoo, DIA and the Historical Museum based upon Michigan supplying one time revenues to help with the transition. The State is pulling that promied funding as part of their budget cuts. The city isn't always the villian. The State appears to be setting a standard of reneging on promises for assets the city turns over control. I love this plan and look forward to its completion but the State is showing that their promises mean nothing when it comes to turning over control of assets. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1905 Registered: 10-2006 |
Apparently the City Council doesn't like to lease their land to the state. Oh wait, they want to sell of 92 city parks to private developers. Hmmmmmm... | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10622 Registered: 10-2003 |
OTOH the state likes the make promises that they renege on. Sadly I have a lot more faith in the word of private developers than I do of those in Lansing. | ||
Fishtoes2000 Member Username: Fishtoes2000 Post Number: 343 Registered: 06-2005 |
That's great news. A win is a win. The bad news is if we don't better fund our state parks we can expect significant closures (~37 parks) starting next fall. There are groups working on some funding solutions to prevent that from happening. Would the DNR close Tricentennial next year? Nothing is decided yet. However, it's my pure speculation that they would not close Tricentennial primarily due their inability to actually close the park (besides the marina). The park would still be open to the public and the DNR would still be responsible to ensure it is safe for the public. The irony is the funding sources for state park capital improvements is relatively healthy and is protected from legislative raids. In other words, the potential funding for developing Tricentennial hasn't dried up. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10626 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks for the inof fishtoes. I think this will be a great project and look forward to spending many summer afternoons there. |
