Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » City hopes to sell 115 acres of Rouge Park « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Tetsua
Member
Username: Tetsua

Post Number: 714
Registered: 01-2004
Posted From: 68.61.194.237
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't quite place what chunk of the park this would be, but it's approximately 1/10 of Rouge park. They hope to get about 30 million for it. I don't really care for the resent "sell sell sell " strategy, and think it's short sighted, but whatever.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/M ETRO01/607260348
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitteacher
Member
Username: Detroitteacher

Post Number: 274
Registered: 06-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The five parcels include:
17 acres in the Joy and Parkland West area
23 acres in the Joy and Spinoza area
28 acres in the Joy and Trinity area
17 acres in the West Warren and Pierson area
29 acres in the West Outer Drive area

That was taken from the article Tetsua referenced. That is right in my old neighborhood. Warren and Outer Drive area. Pity to see the park being sold. MANY fond memories of ice rinks our parents made for us, biking, etc there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7585
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't they have enough spare room within the city to give, not even sell but give, to developers that this isn't necessary.

This works out to 261K per acres. Is it really worth that much.

How can property in the city in Rouge Park go for 261K per acre when the golf course in the burbs is only going for 6 MM or so. I am assuming that the golf course is much larger than 115 acres and the property is much more valueable.

I'm a little sleptical of the listed amounts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4653
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I was wondering if the Rouge Park area will be sold to Dearborn Hieghts or Redford TWP? If it does than those folks around there would have to face a big property tax value hike.

If 115 acres of Rouge Park is being sold to developers so they can build their superlofts and McMansions. How would the property values near the Warrendale/Copper Valley and Parkway Heights be affected?








It's like KING KONG KWAME destined to sell the Rackham Golf course so the property values along Huntington Woods/ northern Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak and Berkley will in one direction UP!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 156
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.33.56.156
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

unbelievable. tons and tons of empty space sitting around and parts of the park are up for developement. a new low on decision-making for city hall
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1659
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems like the City is once-again focusing on the Big Project mentality, rather than the nuts and bolts that make a city work. Detroit needs more parks--not less. Those of you who pay taxes to this corrupt institution, I'm appalled for you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4657
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well it's better to cell the land to developers than to have whole city plunge into recievership.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5

Post Number: 317
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 71.227.95.4
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'd much rather see Detroit temporarilt under the control of the State than lose it's parks forever. What's next? Anyone want to take bets?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitteacher
Member
Username: Detroitteacher

Post Number: 277
Registered: 06-2006
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cell?? Try SELL. A major part of attracting new people to the city is recreation in that city. Parks provide that recreation. I frequented Rouge Park regularly when growing up. It was a place for us kids to go to have fun. Kids can't be kids anymore because we are taking away all of the places for them to go. They can't gather at malls anymore and they have noplace to vent their energy. Kids need outdoors in order to grow and be healthy (not to mention discover nature). I'm all for keeping the parks.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 3535
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.248.88.172
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think Danny was suggesting the park be turned into gated communities, therefore his use of the word "cell". :-)





Than again I've never really learned Dannyese.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitteacher
Member
Username: Detroitteacher

Post Number: 278
Registered: 06-2006
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't see gated communities in those areas. They are surrounded by single family housing. It would be a shame to see anything different in those areas. I can't see mamouth homes being built there either. The homes that are in those areas are nice little bungalow/cape coddish styles. I really don't want to see Redford or Dearborn Heights coming in there to swoop those up. I still say "Viva les parks!!":-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1730
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it's a good idea. I've been through Rouge Park. It's huge and not maintained very well. Like the director of the planning and development department said, most of the park will remain intact.

There are other parks whose land should also be sold. The Eliza Howell Park off of Fenkell and Telegraph is a prime candidate. Right now the park is poorly maintained and it is often used by prostitutes to do their business. Buiding homes on the outer edges of the park while keeping the inner section of the park will attract families with children, thus creating some constant activity that will scare the prostitutes and their Johns away.

I suggested in some of my earliest posts on this forum that the city take land from parks and use it to build homes. Because it is unbuilt land, developers can cut costs since they don't have to spend money cleaning up the land for such things as soil contamination, soil removal, and leftover basements.

For those worrying about there not being enough park space, the city can use the land that once had houses on them and build new parks on that land. Therefore, this announcement and action taken by the city is a win-win situation for Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitteacher
Member
Username: Detroitteacher

Post Number: 279
Registered: 06-2006
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree, get rid of Eliza Howell park!! It's a haven for drugs and hookers. High crime area. I suppose if Rouge Park was sold in parcels far enough away to still keep neighborhood parks around the new development, it wouldn't be bad. The park does need to be maintained better than it is now. I just hope they don't take away from the charm in those neighborhoods by building monstrous attrocities.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gambling_man
Member
Username: Gambling_man

Post Number: 786
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 199.178.193.5
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'll agree with Royce on this one.....None of the municipalities listed could afford to purchase the parcel, it would have to be a developer. Hopefully, they keep the land in the city of Detroit.......they could do a reverse annexation, but I've not heard of it happening for a very long time......
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1805
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I somewhat agree with Royce.

I don't think selling small percentages of large parks is a bad idea, necessarily.

What I think Detroit needs is to maintain and expand greenways -- parkland that can allow for travel over distance. The riverfront conservancy's work, including the dequindre cut and the early work being done on the Conner Creek greenway are good examples.

I don't think Royce meant to imply that all of Eliza Howell Park should be sold, but if he did, I don't agree with it. That park is important to connect to Rouge Park for a greenway that could potential run from the Detroit River (Very easily to Michigan Ave.) to Southfield.

I also think that Detroit needs to have more quality, usable, busy neighborhood parks spread throughout the city.

People don't realize that of all of the vacant land in the city, most of it is not city owned. In the places where the city does control a large portion, redevelopment projects have went forward. A landbank would also do a lot to help make city-owned land useable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1806
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also remember that much of the Rouge and Eliza Howell are parkland because they are floodplain.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1660
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it would be more worthwhile to bulldoze the CAY building and put up a new condo. At least that would be progress....

With so much other vacant land available in the city, I don't see how this is a good idea.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zulu_warrior
Member
Username: Zulu_warrior

Post Number: 2952
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.251.27.41
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rouge Park and Eliza Howell served as staging areas in the War with Livonia.....
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 157
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.33.56.156
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

some of this stufff is ass-backward. there are prostitutes so get rid of the park..... Hey, here is a novel idea---How about dealing with the hookers and keeping the park???? and developers the world over deal with land that formally had a stucture on it. wbat a lame mentality. yesterday, i went to that other web site and enjoyed the photo journeys up streets of detroit. looked like there was plenty of space for developers to take interest in. i beleive it was the hotfudge site.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1731
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc, here's my argument in a nutshell: which do you think a developer would prefer to build on - land that has not be built on or land that has been built on and contains old basements and/or other contaminants in the soil?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 159
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.33.56.156
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc, here's my argument in a nutshell: which do you think a developer would prefer to build on - land that has not be built on or land that has been built on and contains old basements and/or other contaminants in the soil?

location, location, location........
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2716
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 128.36.14.165
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Much of the parkland in those westside Detroit and suburban parks (rouge, Eliza Howell and Hines (sp)) is prone to severe seasonal flooding and development in flat lots even far from the river branches might be subject to erosion effects, remember northwestern wayne county and southern oakland county is vast and flat and most of it drains through the multiple branches of the rouge river. that's why there are parks there and not housing in the first place. the few spots that are high enough to give good lots near the river branches are already developed (eg that nice part of redford up near the golf course, the occasional lot here and there in Dearborn of Dbone hgts or the nice stretch up in oakland county).

Re rouge park it sounds like the city is trying to sell off some of that outer parkland ringing rouge park. This isn't subject to flooding like the interior protions are. Kinda misguided given the condition of retail along plymouth and warren.

Long term imo this part of Detroit bookending rougepark is severely undervalued. You have easy access to freeways, the airport and suburban employment centers. It is due south of the metro area population center. Unlike the older parts of Detroit within the CBD, most of the housing and retail building is unremarkable postwar construction which is readily torn down for redevelopment without too many tears being shed. To the north the slash and burn of Brightmoor is nearly complete whatever fills in represents an inprovement, to the south, western dearborn will likely remain relatively stable, aging middle and lower middle class whitecollar families will likely be replaced by first generation arab american families displaced from east dearborn by immigrant families escaping continuing atrocities in the Levant. Telegraph Rd to the west and southfield freeway to the east represent formidable barriers isolating this area from rougher parts of Detroit and Redford twp/Dbone hghts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1732
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jjw, how old are you? Your responses to comments on this forum are that of a teenage boy who thinks he knows it all. Where do you come off with this "holier than thou" attitude? I didn't say eliminate all of Eliza Howell Park. However, at it's present state, it is a haven for prostitutes and their johns.

If the park had more entrance ways, therefore opening it up to more traffic and activity, it might deter the prostitution. However, the way that it is laid out doesn't allow for this to happen. If you've been to the park you would see what I'm talking about, Jjw, and that's why I suggested building some homes there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 161
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.33.56.156
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

well royce---i hate to break it to ya---but i may in fact know more than you. i find your comments to be somewhat naive and misinformed. developers dear sir are interested in making money and in doing so will look for good prospects. so--location is essential. your statement about a developer not being interested in land that once held a basement is absurd.
---now i hate to sound all high and mighty but you really do need to think ideas out before you post them and expect any kind of credence. take care
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1661
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 1:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Contaminants? What the heck do you keep in YOUR basement, Royce?

A developer is going to build where he can make money. Sometimes, that involves building on previously occupied sites (backhoes are wonderful devices). At least an existing foundation can be re-used, unlike say, tree roots that need to be dug up.

It's not the city's interest to do what is most profitable for a developer. It's the city's interest to do what is best for it's citizens. Whoring public resources like this is wholly unacceptable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1733
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 1:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jjw, I said that developers prefer land that has not been built on before. I did not say that they're not interested in land that once had a basement. Why do many developers build new housing developments on former farms? I thought it was because it's cheaper to build on that land than to build on land that contains previous structures, such as basements. Since you know more than me, Jjw, are you telling me that I was misinformed?

Also, if my comments appear to come across as naive, then maybe that's because I'm not trained in real estate or development. What bothers me about you is that you have this habit of responding to people like, "I(meaning you)can't believe that someone would say that."

Notice how Rustic explained the problem with building on parkland. He talks about the problem with flooding. He didn't say, "You dumbass don't you know you can't build on land in a floodplain?" However, with you it has to be this condescending attitude.

Now, did you notice that some people agreed with my ideas? Fine, you disagree. Just say that you disagree and save the attitude. Skulker is gone. You don't need to take his place.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2488
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.3.220
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 1:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just how big is Rouge Park anyway? I know that it is by far Detroit's largest park... For some reason 2,800 acres sticks in my brain, but I am not sure that is correct.

If it is that large, then 115 acres is not all that much, especially given its' unusual shape. But I don't know enough of the details....

And as far as why not reuse all the vacant land in Detroit, as opposed to using this land... that's a no brainer. As Danny would say, much of that other land is in "Ghettoville", whereas this land abuts nice middle class neighborhoods.

(Message edited by Gistok on July 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1807
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Borrowing from Rustic's points:

There are a lot of reasons the areas around the park should be in high demand, but they are in general not. What can Detroit do to help turn things around?

Many successful reinvestment and redevelopment efforts can be attributed to targeted investment. Public (or strong non-profit) money or energy is directed to a place and (if you pick the right place) the private sector and market will do their jobs, continuing to improve the area.

Maybe this is one of those right places? Then question then becomes what resources does the city have to direct their. The answer is not much money, but they do have the ability to convert some difficult to upkeep parkland into a development parcel, and then exert some control over what is built. This may have a few effects:

* Free up maintenance funds for the rest of the parks system (including the rest of Rouge Park).

* Replace taxable property lost to the state in building the freeways.

* Building housing (maybe commercial) brings attention to the area and encourages neighbors to invest in their own property.

If the city had a lot of resources, I would say that the targeted investment could be upgrades and expansion of the park and surrounding public infrastructure. We don't have that option available to us.

My question is what exact land is proposed for development? Not knowing the specifics, I can't really form my opinion, but in theory, this can be a good idea.

Hopefully the parks department, along with their counterparts along the area, are working towards an end goal of having a parking way follow that branch of the Rouge. (Connecting Eliza to Rouge). Looking at Google maps, it seems to me that the land (not necessarily the connections) is in place from Michigan Ave @ Evergreen in Dearborn all the way to 10 mile @ The Lodge in Southfield. (I may be wrong about that last mile or so, but it as far north as 9 mile @ Lahser is easy.

Some of this land is private golf course, some is cemetery, but there is continuous green that whole way.

I would rather the city work towards that vision than spend all of their energy mowing the grass in a bunch of disconnected fields.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1734
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc, I'm surprised at your last post. What contaminants? You haven't heard of asbestos, lead paint, and other hazardous material that might be found at the site of a former house built in Detroit or any other older city?

It costs MORE money for a developer to have to clear land that had a previous structure on it than it does to build on farmland or parkland. Also, if the basement remains on a development site, isn't it going to take longer to remove it therefore adding to the costs of developing the site(overtime pay for the backhoe driver and costs to transport and place contaminants in a landfill)?

Again, why do developers of housing developments prefer to build on land that use to be farmland?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1808
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Royce,

The issues with redevelopment aren't so much the ones you have brought up, but rather some of these:

* legal work to clear titles to assemble land
* efficiencies in construction as well as planning of large projects as opposed to many small ones
* marketing of one development instead of a bunch of separate homes (where you have no control over the neighbors)
* Inflexiblility in existing lot dimensions

Actual contaimination can plan a role, but it can also play a role in greenfield development (pesticides, dumps, ect).
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 751
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 69.209.128.123
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The city needs more open space and parks not less.

One of the most difficult parts of moving here form out of state is learning to cope with the the ack of open space relataive to Western cities and the fact that to get to a park of even modest size (eg Kensington MP), you need to get in your car and drive for 30 minutes.


I really think this is short sighted.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ramcharger
Member
Username: Ramcharger

Post Number: 24
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 68.42.78.175
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The park is 1,180 acres. However, a large portion is the golf course. It also houses a large tract of land used by the Dept. of Parks & Recreation as a nursery, the DPD firing range and the now abandon DPD mounted division stables. There is also a section which used to be a large public ice skating rink which became a toxic waste dump during the Young administration and which is therefore unfit for any use. This is not an official map but I believe these are the areas the city is planning to sell.

Rouge Park

There is a huge tract of land (the former Herman Gardens housing project) only 1.6 miles away which the city has been trying to unload for years without success. What makes them think that this land is so valuable? I think it is extremely shortsighted and it makes me wonder what he will sell to plug next year’s budget gap.


(Message edited by Ramcharger on July 26, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1662
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well hell, why stop there? If you really want to make some money, sell off parts of Belle Isle for developers to build luxury waterfront housing. You'll make a lot more loot that way....

The point is, the City of Detroit doesn't give half a shit about its residents. All they see when they make policy is $$$, which leads to short-sighted gimmicks like this. Some of you act like Detroit is built-up like fucking Tokyo. There's plenty of land ripe for housing development--it's not the city's job to decide what is most profitable for developers. It IS their job, however, to formulate good policy, which this is not.

You have to wonder, too, after reading the Detroit Snooze article from July 3, whether or not this money would be put into some sort of capital fund, or just used to balance the budget. It's generally not a good idea to sell the wedding ring to make the mortgage payment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1735
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ray, the problem with Detroit and its park system is that the parks aren't evenly distributed. Where I grew up there were five parks(playfields with at least a baseball diamond, a basketball court, swings, and a slide) within seven blocks from where I lived. The one around the block was used by my friends and I almost daily.

However, in some areas of the city the kids have no playground for blocks. In some parts of the city, kids have to go to what I call the "picnic parks" - Palmer, Chandler, River Rouge, and Belle Isle.

This is not scientific but it appears that as this city was developed, areas with low and moderate income families tended to have more parks than areas with higher income families.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 162
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.33.56.156
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 3:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

my last post before leaving work---
Royce-----I can't believe you would say that!!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4053
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.185.186.81
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 3:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Considering the size of the park, selling 1/10 to spur development/reinvestment doesn't sound like a bad idea. And, for people saying that there is land all over the city, true, but it comes down to something very simple, this part of Detroit is what can be considered "desirable" or at least more desirable than MOST of the rest of the city. This will be easily marketable, meaning, the land will most likely not sit empty for too long.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1663
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 3:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What DOESN'T "spur development" in Detroit??? I know I don't live in Detroit, but I'm tired of "spurring development" being trotted out as the same lame-ass excuse for every half-baked idea.

The City owns 40,000 vacant properties, and they have to sell (part of) one that actually has value in its current usage. Where's the rationale in that?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 54
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 63.85.13.248
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe a comprimise can be made? For example, let the City develop the 110 aacres in Rouge, only if it sets aside parkland in areas where there are few recreational activities; then set a plan to develop around that park as well?

As a Warrendale Resident I have mixed feelings about this proposal. I can see these areas being used to attract higher end housing, but I also know that folks bought their homes expecting that they would live across from a park. How will it look if one side of the street the homes were built in 1948; and on the other 2008? Pretty dammed silly if you ask me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1809
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Maybe a comprimise can be made? For example, let the City develop the 110 aacres in Rouge, only if it sets aside parkland in areas where there are few recreational activities; then set a plan to develop around that park as well?




That sounds like a great idea.


quote:

How will it look if one side of the street the homes were built in 1948; and on the other 2008? Pretty dammed silly if you ask me.




How does it look when in europe there is a building built ca. 1300 right next to one built in 1978? Or in Corktown where there are homes from 1830 next to homes built in the last couple decades? I don't think that is really a concern at all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4055
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.185.186.81
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 6:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitplanner,

That really was a great idea! A fair exchange is a great idea as there are quite a few places in Detroit that could use some parkland.
Top of pageBottom of page

Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit

Post Number: 616
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 69.246.10.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 6:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jsmeyers... I agree.. development is development
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8666
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.54.70.86
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DaninDC. What $$$ are you talking about? The city is bankrupt and people want to go on spending cash. How about spend some money on cops and cut out all the $$$ CC and the mayor spend on themselves.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1671
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.31
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 7:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

danindc had it right when he said selling the wedding ring to pay the mortgage is is a bad thing.
How does this (sale) do anything other than postpone the inevitable? The city i.e.e council is unwilling to face up to any meaningful solutions such as firing all city employees and rehiring as non-union.Instead they pay themselves salaries totally undeserving and the city ontinues with high crime and an out flow of residents.
Some of you may not like the union busting firing idea but what else can the city do?
Honestly this reminds me of a junke selling off his car, his boat, his house and eventuallynhis clothes if he can never really addressing the core problem.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dillpicklesoup
Member
Username: Dillpicklesoup

Post Number: 134
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 64.7.188.183
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 8:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

See- I told ya- next Kwamee will be subdividing belle isle- and kwamee's daddy will be the consultant for the project-
just wait and see- it won't take long-
Top of pageBottom of page

Brian
Member
Username: Brian

Post Number: 3327
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.218.156.194
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Most of Rouge Park is the river and its wetlands. All of its many acres cannot be counted as useable.

With the high number of houses in foreclosure in the city and the already mentioned large amounts of land already in government hands, which now has a clear title, these types of ideas for use as housing land is a bad idea.

Whatever happened to the love affair with neighborhoods and infill housing? Places that already have an infrastructure that is ready to plug into. Building in Rouge park means new seware infrastructure and new water mains. Also some of the areas mentioned, if accurate is now considered protected plant species ( cannot think of the term at the moment).

I predict this idea goes the way of the MCS plan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 150
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 64.131.176.232
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't believe people are actually giving thought to the idea of selling off pieces of Rouge Park.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1737
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If Ramcharger's map of the areas being considered for redevelopment is accurate, the impact on the rest of Rouge Park is minimal.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gianni
Member
Username: Gianni

Post Number: 235
Registered: 05-2004
Posted From: 69.3.205.108
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've always thought that parks should never be sold, period. That's why they are parks. If they were up for grabs they'd be long gone. WTF? Why do you think Central Park in NYC is still a park? Can you imaginge what the land would be worth otherwise? I always thought that there was some kind of deed restriction that required parks to always be used as such. Otherwise, obviously this would be the best land to build on.

If we go down this slippery slope, I don't know why Belle Isle isn't next. How about Gabriel Richard Park? I'd like to be the first in line for some of that waterfront property.

This one ranks with giving the casinos the riverfront in terms of all time bad ideas for Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 2244
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 72.134.37.149
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 1:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

selling off Eliza Howell sounds like a good idea..it's been a problem park for 30 years, if not more.
Problem is, it is adjacent to Brightmoor, where nobody wanted to live 30 years ago, let alone now. Perhaps the PR types could be hired to do a name change on Brightmoor...but what would they call it? South Warrendale?
It is also adjacent to Redford Twp, a somewhat well run older ring suburb. But with nearly every block in Redford Twp sporting a vacant house or two, maybe EH should just be left as a problem park.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1740
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.209.152.173
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 4:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How about North Redford or South Old Redford?
Top of pageBottom of page

Harsensis
Member
Username: Harsensis

Post Number: 67
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 71.227.102.82
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I haven't been to Rouge Park, but I wanted to ask if there are any newer fountains there? When the "Taco Bell" House in Grosse Pointe was torn down in the mid to late 1990's, I heard that the fountain from that house was taken to Rouge Park. It is a round cement fountain with three tiers.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 919
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 209.104.146.146
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:04 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let's start a recall petition against the entire City of Detroit government.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4663
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 141.217.174.229
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:06 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

YEAH!!!!!! Let's recall all the city government officials starting with KING KONG KWAME and the "CLOWNSIL MEMBERS"
Top of pageBottom of page

Ramcharger
Member
Username: Ramcharger

Post Number: 25
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 68.42.78.175
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Harsensis, There are no fountains in Rouge Park. There never has been as long as I can remember. There's an old cannon (Civil War era, I believe) on a traffic island at the intersection of Sawyer and Spinoza.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swiburn
Member
Username: Swiburn

Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2006
Posted From: 35.10.67.132
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't see the city creating new parks to replace parts of ones they sell off-Detroit doesn't have money to take care of their old parks, yet alone create new ones.
Also, I believe that there was a power struggle between the Huron-Clinton Parks Authority and Detroit a few years ago over Belle Isle ownership. But really, nothing is sacred unless there is a tight deed restriction and or enough of an uproar, viz. Rackham Golf Course.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 7596
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Also, I believe that there was a power struggle between the Huron-Clinton Parks Authority and Detroit a few years ago over Belle Isle ownership.




Nothing beyond the city asking for help and HCMA saying 'Fuck you, just keep sending us money.'
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 57
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 63.85.13.248
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 1:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Swi: Thing big picture, people want to live near parks, there are abandoned parts of the city without parks. Put in simple parks, and development will surround them. This way the City gets more property on the tax roles, parks more efficiently serve the public, and thats just 110 less acres you need to develop.

I would not call it a powerstruggle with HCMA, I'd call it exploritory negotiations. If you pay City of Detroit taxes Swi you would notice that the City has been kicking into the HCMA kitty for quite some time through a millage. How many HCMA parks are located where Detroiter's are cheif beneficiaries? None. An HCMA partnership might make sense, but it would have to be in a way that allows the park to remain a city park (free) as opposed to a regional park (admission).
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 156
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit residents only have themselves to blame for this unless they stop being stupid and sell DDOT and SMART for one dollar each but getting the SMART property tax to fail on August 8, 2006

The days of state and federal money to our cities are history AND the days of state and federal mass transit money is also history

AND, our industries will never pay for mass transit out of the kindness of their hearts.

But, In Detroit the residents just don't see this.
Top of pageBottom of page

Birdwoman
Member
Username: Birdwoman

Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2006
Posted From: 67.149.233.65
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are two definitions of "park" floating around here. One is recreational -- including ball fields, picnic areas, etc. These can and should be created in many more neighborhoods throughout Detroit. The other is open space and natural areas, which cannot be recreated from vacant lots.

The undeveloped areas in Rouge Park are very important wildlife habitat, providing habitat for a surprisingly wide variety of creatures. Reptiles, amphibians, and birds (my specialty) have been especially well-documented. Developing the areas even outside the floodplain will further fragment the habitat -- which causes ecological changes and damage far above what one would expect from removing such small areas -- and also mean more flooding, siltation, and contamination of the Rouge River. There's been a lot of progress improving the river in the last few years (http://www.rougeriver.com/), and this is a big step backwards.

Ecologically speaking, this is remarkably stupid. They are not making intact riparian forests anymore, people!
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 62
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 63.85.13.248
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

1. Detroit does not have any vested inerest in SMART to sell.

2. Detroit can't pass the SMART tax if it wanted to, it is considered a non-SMART community.. hmm that didn't sound too good!

3. Are you now insinuating that those that live with Detoit's borders are stupid?!? DDOT works a lot better than SMART does. Its also better funded through the City's general fund. Can you say the same about your community?

4. What does Rouge Park have to do with SMART? You're just trying to latch onto anything to RIP on Detroit or those who use transit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Frank_c
Member
Username: Frank_c

Post Number: 689
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 207.200.116.139
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 4:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nix the whores, crack, meth, and save open space. Get those criminals out of the parks and let the kids in.

NO ALCOHOL NO DRUGS NO DOGS
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 157
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are thousands of vacant lots that can be developed but Kwame keeping dumping Millions more every year into DDOT while at the same our state and industry provide much too little money for DDOT.

No, I don't think Detroit is stupid but I do think Livonia residents including myself are stupid if we don't attack our leaders in Lansing and at SEMOCOG for allowing Kwame to sell the parks because this idea will destroy BOTH Detroit AND Livonia.

When I tried to get DDOT to come to Livonia with SMART which was my idea, I was totally ignored.
Kwame also ignored me by not answering any phone calls or letters. I desperately tried to fix the Plymouth Road buses to stop my city council from opting out in June 2003 because of the excellent job SMART did to fix the Middlebelt bus line.

But, my efforts to get bus schedules failed and YES this does have a lot to do with selling Rouge Park because DDOT will lose if Livonia does not come back and pay for mass transit and work with Detroit officials. I also tried to get my city council to keep SMART but they just yelled at me told me to go to Lansing over and over.

Then, I go to Lansing and they tell me to go back to Livonia.

I go to Detroit city council and they ignore me.

I filed a civil rights complaint against the Michigan Department of Transportation. The purpose of state revenue sharing for mass transit is to protect the large parks and not to destroy them.
I continue to fight our state for not stopping urban sprawl as I attack the I-75 billion dollar expansion because it does not include mass transit and YES, this is discrimination and I prove it using facts mostly from SEMOOG databases.

So, please Detroit residents don't let your guard down and get mass transit leaders voted in at the state level. Or, you very well just might lose Rouge Park.

Please, I live near Rouge Park and this concerns me very deeply. I'm going back to my city hall in Livonia to slam the person who yelled at me to make sure he gets out of office.

Please help Kwame understand that we need to all work to make Detroit a world class city because if we don't then it won't be just Detroit that will be a sewer ----

It will be LIVONIA, MICHIGAN, U.S.A.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72

Post Number: 130
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 66.184.3.44
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Trainman,
What the F does your post have to do with parks?
What connection is there between you getting screamed at by your councilman in Livonia? I am continuesly ammased at how you can turn any thread into your crusade for making the trains run on time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4060
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.177.81.137
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 7:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

He's most likely mentally ill.
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 159
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 11:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The purpose of mass transit funding is to best serve the public as whole. Thus my website has everything to do with all the posts and everything else because I'm a loving compassionate person who really cares.

I really don't want Kwame to sell Rouge Park and I do indeed want leadership in Lansing to stop making Detroit a costly place to live.

If our state and regional leaders really cared like I do then lots of people would move to Detroit and Kwame would have lots of money for his buses.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 66
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

hmm so SEMCOG is terrible, but you use its data to make your points?

SEMCOG cannot stop anyone from doing things with their own land. Home rule allows Detroit officials the ability to develop what they want to, regardless if the rest of the world thinks its stupid. We as citizens, if we don't like it, can vote em out. Did you know that the City of Livonia could condem your house and take it and hand the land over to a developer, you would have no recouse after the public hearing. THe Kelo verdict gives local units of government even more power than they used to have.

I am glad that you are trying to make your voice heard, unfortunately since you don't vote in Detroit, how did you expect you would get treated? If I went to Livonia as a citizen of Detroit to bitch them out, I would expect I'd be ignored or tossed out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 165
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 64.12.116.204
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is still the responsibility of the Michigan Department of Transportation to fully pay for the operations of SMART and DDOT from the fuel tax.

Unfortunately, SEMCOG is using bus money to expand our roads and rails and to get federal grants and this is primarily why Detroit is expensive to live in. YES, SEMCOG is terrible and their own facts prove it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 73
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SEMCOG flexes FHWA funds from highway projects to bus projects. They have a policy of spending 1/2 the money they get from Highway Congestion Mitigation on transit projects.

Transit funds have never been spent on road projects in the metropolitan region, it is the other way around. Could SEMCOG flex more? Sure they could, however the roads would go to hell, they are already underfunded as it is.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4062
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.162.169.62
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can you not continue to feed the troll, Detroitplanner, and get this back on subject?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 76
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

you're right, I just get mad when I hear people just flat out lying about how planning and funding works.

That being said, I'd sure hate to lose the park, cuz they ain't making any more land in Detroit, we should be adding parkland, not takinf it away.

(Message edited by detroitplanner on July 30, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4063
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.162.169.62
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rouge Park isn't going anywhere. I really don't see this as a slippery slope.
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 1082
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 24.231.189.137
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

well, i suppose if it is sold, the park will remain at over 1,000 acres...
Top of pageBottom of page

Former_detroiter
Member
Username: Former_detroiter

Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2006
Posted From: 4.245.121.133
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is very sad, I sincerely hope it does not happen. Surely there are other ways the city could raise funds? I have wonderful memories of Rouge Park, I grew-up one block from it. Went ice skating, sledding there, roamed freely, extensively in the park. (Is it still safe to do that today?)
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 1102
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 24.231.189.137
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

well, the grass is uncut, litter is everywhere, but people still seem to use it fairly regularly

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.