I spelled 'high scholl' wrong. Probably because I wasn't allowed in those darn parks
Jt1: It's some people's obsession with the parks in St. Clair Shores and the Pointes that made this topic seem that way. Reread my original post with a rational mind. It's about opening up the coast in general and improving bus services. How could that not improve the region? And on the topic of the sacred parks, all I've ever said is that opening up them up could be a step in that direction. Personally, I'd be more than happy if they opened up most of the coast but kept the current parks resident-only, so xenophobic Shoreans and Pointers could keep their private refuges from Detroiters and the horrors of fish guts.
I agree our regional use of the asset is sad. Then again our regional support of the arts, transportation, disabled and mentally ill. homeless, etc are all pretty sad.
The big issue with using the water isn't opening up access to the few parks on the water but the mass use of residential housing on the shoreline. The few parks in Grosse Pointe and Macomb County probably make up a fraction of a percent of the total water frontage.
Maybe we could push for a regional tax to buy homes on the water as they go up for sale, tear them down and create regional accesible parks. The argument is to fight for a few acres as opposed to looking at the big picture.
Of course we have a region that appears appalled at the idea of supporting one of the best art museums in the country so I doubt that any regional approach to parks and access would get very far.
But I'll be more than happy to grab my pitchfork and storm the lakes in Oakland County
PS - Sorry for the snarkiness.
I just don't think that regionalism and sharing of assets is something this region will discuss if it results in [[a) additional taxes [[b) mixing with people of different color, ethnicity or socioeconomic background or [[c) someone giving something up to better the region.
We are what we are: A region that was once wealthy but never educated and never regionally thinking. Wealth with a lack of education and a lack of vision is what got us here and what will keep up here.
Throughout all of this you still have not given one piece of evidence except that others do it [[some jump off bridges but I am not just because they want to), let's see some real numbers that giving up a miniscule shoreline will ACTUALLY help the area not just your agenda? And still no crying about access in Detroit why don't you want the same access there? If we should give our shoreline why not everyone? But then I already know the answer!! You are the real xenophobic when it comes down to it!
That's one possible explanation, I suppose. Here are a few others I thought of:
1. Detroit doesn't have Lake St. Clair frontage, so to the extent that Lake St. Clair frontage is what nain rouge is after, it doesn't make much sense to worry about Detroit.
2. Nain rouge lives closer to the SCS/GP parts of Lake St. Clair than to the Detroit riverfront, so accessing the Detroit riverfront presents the same problem as accessing Lake St. Clair through Metro Beach or points north. Conversely, since I live much closer to the Detroit riverfront than to Lake St. Clair, I'd never really given much thought to the amount of lake access available in SCS/GP before I saw this thread.
3. Detroit, at least on the east side, provides a lot of public access to its waterfront already. Off the top of my head, there are enormous parks at the ends of Alter, Lakewood, and Conner, there's a smaller park at Dwight and Parkview in the Berry Sub, there's Richard Park, there's Belle Isle, and there's Mt. Elliott Park and the whole riverwalk stretching from there into downtown. All those parks are free and open to the public without restriction, except that some of them close at night.
On top of a right on the money obsevation, 3 of the underutilzed parks are right at the mouth of the Detroit River! This crying has been going on as long as I can rememeber and for the last 43 years I have heard the same inane comments, but whats really funny is everyone that's 100% of those with similar views who move here change their tune almost immediately once they really see what's at stake. In the long run you will NEVER change the situation short of killing all 50,000 residents so take your crying somewhere else where someone actually cares!
Michigan actually has a pretty good case law when it comes to beaches. You're allowed to walk them by the high tide line. All of the great lakes. I don't think the same holds true for Lake St. Claire. I guess that would be a reason to declare it a great lake.
http://www.beachapedia.org/State_of_...I/Beach_Access
BTW: I think Belle Isle's beaches are better than the ones I trespassed to see in St. Claire Shores. The guard just gave my friend and I a friendly wave. Unfortunately if you're darker skinned, I know at least one guy who got carded and booted from the park.
I really think the Pointes and Shores need to excise their own personal Hubbards and allow nonresidents into the parks.
Now if we could just get a warning put up at Belle Isle about swimming at your own risk due to the currents at Hipster Beach everyone could skinny-dip in peace :cool: [[without DPD rolling up and giving everyone trespassing citations).
"All of the great lakes. I don't think the same holds true for Lake St. Claire. I guess that would be a reason to declare it a great lake."
The same rule applies to Lake St. Clair. But I don't think there's much "beach" or otherwise walkable areas along the lake near the Pointes or SCS. Even if it was possible, I'm sure that the cops would be called immediately if you attempted to walk along the waterfront in the Pointes or SCS.