Detroit council OKs its own lease deal for Belle Isle: 10 years instead of 30

"Detroit’s historic Belle Isle park will soon be leased and operated as a Michigan state park.
But for how long and under what terms?
Those are the questions that remain after the Detroit City Council approved a 10-year lease of Belle Isle in the face of public criticism at a special meeting on Monday.
The deal council approved by a 4-2 vote will be one of two lease agreements a state panel will consider over the next 30 days. The other is a 30-year lease proposal emergency manager Kevyn Orr and Gov. Rick Snyder approved earlier this month. The council unanimously rejected that plan on Monday".

"Councilman James Tate, who spearheaded the effort to craft an alternative lease, said he is confident the state panel, known as the Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board, will back the shorter lease council approved on Monday.

The board, composed of Snyder appointees, is required under state law to choose the best plan for Detroiters. Although Orr is in charge and Detroit is in a financial emergency, the state board has final say on the deal because it involves the sale or lease of city assets worth at least $50,000".




http://www.freep.com/article/2013101...state-michigan

Uhhhhhh, wasn't that the original State proposal?

30 year lease that would need to be re-approved every 10 years, if I remember right. Just shows how absolutely pointless it was for council to straight reject it. I really wish they would've done the "So, we'll do 10 years with renewal options, also you have some deadlines for improvements" business they are doing now like, six months ago.

They are trying to make themselves relevant and save face. It has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vic01

"Detroit’s historic Belle Isle park will soon be leased and operated as a Michigan state park.
But for how long and under what terms?
Those are the questions that remain after the Detroit City Council approved a 10-year lease of Belle Isle in the face of public criticism at a special meeting on Monday.
The deal council approved by a 4-2 vote will be one of two lease agreements a state panel will consider over the next 30 days. The other is a 30-year lease proposal emergency manager Kevyn Orr and Gov. Rick Snyder approved earlier this month. The council unanimously rejected that plan on Monday".

"Councilman James Tate, who spearheaded the effort to craft an alternative lease, said he is confident the state panel, known as the Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board, will back the shorter lease council approved on Monday.

The board, composed of Snyder appointees, is required under state law to choose the best plan for Detroiters. Although Orr is in charge and Detroit is in a financial emergency, the state board has final say on the deal because it involves the sale or lease of city assets worth at least $50,000".




http://www.freep.com/article/2013101...state-michigan

---

While I am definitely in favor of having the capital improvements guaranteed by the lease, I believe that City Council misunderstood the requirements of the "alternative plan" to put forward.

When they were given 10 days to propose an alternative plan, my understanding was that they needed to have an alternative plan that was viable. While I'm certainly in favor of the City's proposal [[though ambivalent about 10 yrs vs. 30 yrs)...the issue is that the proposal doesn't become viable until all of the parties to the proposal are committed to do it.

So for example, finding a developer to do capital improvements [[while putting forth a business plan combining grant money, user fees, revenue sharing from private enterprise) might be considered a viable alternative proposal...simply amending the state's contract and asking for better terms isn't viable. At least, not until the state counter-signs the proposal and says that they're on board.

But perhaps I misunderstood.

Bottom line. I'm glad that we're moving toward state management. Now I hope the state comes through and does it right.

I think the States' wisest move is to withdraw its offer and allow the City Council to chalk up a "win" and get on with managing Belle Isle. When a Donee tells the Donor what he will be allowed to give, it doesn't bode well for the future working relationship. It was a mistake to start with but here's a chance to recover. You cannot "force" help on people and expect them to want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

I think the States' wisest move is to withdraw its offer and allow the City Council to chalk up a "win" and get on with managing Belle Isle. When a Donee tells the Donor what he will be allowed to give, it doesn't bode well for the future working relationship. It was a mistake to start with but here's a chance to recover. You cannot "force" help on people and expect them to want it.

---

Exactly. I thought this was done the first time around. How many times does the State have to hear "no" before it takes it's very generous offer and goes home?

I would hope those that showed up at meeting after meeting and railed against this deal will be equally vigilant in keeping the City Council's feet to the fire on the island. Wont be holding my breath though.

As someone who is an expert neither in the law nor in the specifics of the emergency manager situation, I'm curious if anybody in the know can tell us all exactly how much weight City Council has in this particular situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

As someone who is an expert neither in the law nor in the specifics of the emergency manager situation, I'm curious if anybody in the know can tell us all exactly how much weight City Council has in this particular situation?

---

From an earlier article....
■ If the council rejects the state lease, state law gives it one week to craft an alternative proposal that will save the city the same amount of money [[about $6 million a year in annual maintenance costs). Council also has the option to accept the deal, although that outcome is unlikely.
■ Any alternative lease crafted by the council would be forwarded to a state board made up of Snyder appointees. The board would have 30 days to pick either Orr’s lease or the council’s alternative lease — whichever the board decides will serve the best interest of Detroiters.
■ Orr must implement the plan the state board approves.

As it turns out, beggars can be choosers.

Snyder made a good move here. Now it doesn't look so much like a "take over" [[for those who have trouble grasping the term "lease"), but more of a consent agreement, if you will, between the City and State.

I would love for the State to include in the fine print "vehicle ticket booth to be manned in equal hours by citizens of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties" just to see if Council would catch it.:o

Even the main teabagger that basically now calls the shots vis a vis the budget in this State claims the lease agreement with the State is crap:


http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baselinepunk

Even the main teabagger that basically now calls the shots vis a vis the budget in this State claims the lease agreement with the State is crap:


http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

---

...for very different reasons than anything the council claims it objects to. Kahn wants it stopped because "...that[money to Belle Isle] might compete with money needed for overdue repairs at state parks."

I don't think that the shorter lease term is a bad idea at all. There is great unease here on the east side and elsewhere in the city with the notion of the state taking over [[OK, leasing) Belle Isle for the long-term. In part because no one quite knows what it a state-run Belle Isle going to look like and how well it will work for we city residents who have paid for and used the park for 140+ years. It is clear that something needs to be done for Belle Isle, but think 10 years is more than long enough for the state to either show that it can do the job to the satisfaction of city residents or prove that it cannot.

The city does not have the means to maintain the park. ANY offer by the state to take over it's maintenance and leave it as a park is generous. The trash on the council has both false pride and no shame. And no, they do not have the city's best interests at heart. They are more angered by the state's attempts to help than systemic corruption in government.

The state's "help" has not often been all that helpful to Detroiters. Although I think state operation of the park is basically a good idea, many here will need to be won over since we have little historic reason to trust Lansing to act in our best interests.

With all due respect, EastsideAl, no state park is as poorly maintained as Belle Isle. Even if there was no improvement [[and I am fairly certain that Snyder wouldn't want his name attached to something that stays so decrepit), it saves the city money it doesn't have. There IS NO DOWNSIDE to a state takeover. Unless it hurts your pride. And that is silly.

While I'm not a huge park guy, I do use the rifle range and trap facilities at Bald Mountain. I've also played the golf course there. From what I've seen, the place is a small cut below immaculate.

The major problem I can see with a 10 year lease is that the chance of major capital improvements in the park are reduced. Not living in the area anymore, I don't really know that state the infrastructure of the park is, but if the state were considering major improvements to, say for example, the Casino, I don't think 10 years would be a long enough payback time.

Our city owned golf course [[where I live) needed some major improvement. The follow who leased it from the city asked for a 30 year lease for the above reason. He ended up with a 25 year one, but wouldn't go any shorter than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Uhhhhhh, wasn't that the original State proposal?

---

No it wasn't. The original deal was for a 90 year lease. After the first 30 years, the City would have the right to terminate the lease, otherwise it would automatically renew for 30 more years. Same deal after the second 30 year period. So effectively - 90 year lease.

It was revised after the first set of protests, but Council tabled the discussion and never voted on the revisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

No it wasn't. The original deal was for a 90 year lease. After the first 30 years, the City would have the right to terminate the lease, otherwise it would automatically renew for 30 more years. Same deal after the second 30 year period. So effectively - 90 year lease.

It was revised after the first set of protests, but Council tabled the discussion and never voted on the revisions.

---

Here's the only quote I could find from the original offer made by the State: "The lease deal on the table is pretty good. It's for a shorter term than the original lease, and allows either the city or the state to terminate the lease after 10 years." This is the only reference I could find after searching, from the Battle Creek Enquirer, dated 1-29-13. I thought I remembered it being for 10 year periods, then up for renewal. I wasn't aware there was a different deal before this one. Thanx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

I don't think that the shorter lease term is a bad idea at all. There is great unease here on the east side and elsewhere in the city with the notion of the state taking over [[OK, leasing) Belle Isle for the long-term. In part because no one quite knows what it a state-run Belle Isle going to look like and how well it will work for we city residents who have paid for and used the park for 140+ years. It is clear that something needs to be done for Belle Isle, but think 10 years is more than long enough for the state to either show that it can do the job to the satisfaction of city residents or prove that it cannot.

---

You're right. There's nothing wrong with a 10 year term. Except that it isn't what our elected officials have proposed. Our democratically-elected officials wisely proposed a 30 years lease -- so they could most efficiently use our tax dollars.

Your post sounds like the lease is an outsourcing to private industry. Its not. Its simply a transfer between two governmental units that exist to serve the city residents.

Hey, if Roger Khan wants the Capitol building repaired, maybe he should raise taxes to help fund state government betthahahahahahahahaha yeah right. What a weasel, he wants everything but wouldn't support a business tax increase to properly fund the things that make our state stand out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motz

Hey, if Roger Khan wants the Capitol building repaired, maybe he should raise taxes to help fund state government betthahahahahahahahaha yeah right. What a weasel, he wants everything but wouldn't support a business tax increase to properly fund the things that make our state stand out.

---

That's the way it goes in Teabagger Nation. They all want roads, and internet connections to spew their BS but don't want to pay anything for it.

"...for very different reasons than anything the council claims it objects to. Kahn wants it stopped because "...that[money to Belle Isle] might compete with money needed for overdue repairs at state parks."


Hmmmm, not like I really give two shits what Con [[Kahn) thinks -- he does note that it will take much more money to bring the Island up to standards; the figure used [[6 mill) is too low considering the amount of upgrades. So chew on that if you may.

If Snyder wants to get re-elected in this State, he better just turn this EM bullshit around and come up with something better -- like right now.

Teabagger Nation claims they speak for the people; the only people they speak for are the Capitalist Pig Dogs and other selfish bastards that line the pockets of morons like Kahn, and that other DB from Livonia. They do not speak for the vast majority of the population in the country, let alone the State.

They're talking in Bankruptcy court right now about the Constitutioniality of the EM law. One Federal Court has already ruled that the State subverted the will of the people and it is not Constitutional.


Like always in this town -- The ends do not justify the means. It only makes things much, much worse ....