From the Detroit News: Detroit plans for alternate use of 92 parks

February 06. 2010 11:12AM Detroit plans for alternate use of 92 parks

Land won't be actively marketed, but might be donated to nonprofits or swapped, city says

Christine MacDonald / The Detroit News

Detroit --The city is moving ahead with a controversial plan to dispose of as many as 92 underutilized parks, which could include sales or adoptions by nonprofits.

The plan was first pitched by former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrickhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adT...lass_10x10.gif, who estimated that selling the combined 124 acres of parkland could net the city $8 million. But Mayor Dave Bing's staff said they aren't going to actively market the parks for sale.

If there are inquiries, staffers say they'll consider offers. But the goal is to find other uses, such as nonprofits adopting the parks or allowing urban farmers to use the land.

The city is also considering potential land swaps with entities such as the Detroit Public Schools.

"The strategy is not a wholesale selling of parks," said Alicia Minter, the city's parks and recreation director. "We are not shopping these around."

Typically, the city chose the parks because they were in areas where population dropped or where there are multiple parks, officials have said. If a park was sold or swapped, the plan would be to open up another park in a more viable area so that overall park acreage wouldn't be affected.

The City Council is expected to approve a parks master plan as soon as Tuesday, which lists the 92 parks as "repositioned." The plan has remained stalled for four years in part over concerns the parks would be sold. But Minter said the council would still have to approve any sales separately.

Most of the 92 parks have been sporadically maintained, including mowing, over the last several years, a move the city estimated in 2007 would save $540,000 a year. The city has 308 parks.

The plan could impact folks such as Bill Dowell, who lives on the west side across from Riordan Park, where most of the swings and equipment is broken. He took it upon himself this summer to mow the nearly 4-acre park. He wants it to remain a park, but said he's frustrated the city hasn't taken care of it.

"The neighborhood kids use it a lot," Dowell said. "They are always over there playing."

Councilman James Tate, who supports the master plan changes, said the council will closely scrutinize any proposals to sell parks, but the city needs to figure out how best to maintain the land amid a decline in population and resources.

"How do we best serve our residents' residential needs?" he asked.

Passage of the plan by City Council would allow the department to apply for state and federal grants, which require an updated master plan, Minter said.

cmacdonald@detnews.com [[313) 222-2396

From The Detroit News: http://detroitnews.com/article/20100...#ixzz0em9X5r1t

PDF for parks being considered for repositioning: http://download.gannett.edgesuite.ne.../0206parks.pdf

The City leadership better be careful not to get rid of so much green space that it puts them in violation of their Master Plan. If that happens, funding will be cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baselinepunk

The City leadership better be careful not to get rid of so much green space that it puts them in violation of their Master Plan. If that happens, funding will be cut.

---

What funding will be cut? Funding is cut now because the city doesn't have an approved recreation plan.

Also, this recreation plan does not get rid of any greenspace. Any park sale or trade would be a separate council issue. This plan also calls for new parks in underserved locations.

In fact, passing the plan will allow the city to apply for state/federal grants to acquire greenspace for trails [[e.g. Dequindre Cut extensions) and improve the existing parks and rec centers.

It's hypocritical of the Detroit News to embrace plans to shrink and re-think the city -- then paint this plan so negatively. One of the main benefits of endorsing this plan is mentioned in passing with one sentence at the end of the article.

I'm by far no expert, but it's my understanding that if a City is in violation of its Master Plan regarding green space, the city can loose associated State and Federal funding.

Just like in the Rec situation noted above. I thought cities of a certain size had to have a rec department and programs. Perhaps I'm off on all of this; but I seem to remember talking to someone "knowledgeable" on the topic about these types of situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baselinepunk

I'm by far no expert, but it's my understanding that if a City is in violation of its Master Plan regarding green space, the city can loose associated State and Federal funding.

---

A city could be looked upon unfavorably by grantees if they ignored their master plan. If there were such a requirement, this rec plan should be aligned with it. It's a well-done document.

The bigger issue is the state [[and to a lessor extent) the feds don't award grants unless a city has an approved rec plan. Detroit is missing out on millions in rec. grants because this plan wasn't approved years ago.

If they do this selectively, and within the bounds of their Master Plan, strong neighborhood associations or non-profits could begin to manage and maintain some parks, which would be an improvement over some of the current maintenance, and allow precious city funds to be spend providing more upkeep elsewhere.

Many of the parks listed in that pdf are nothing more than greenspace, so I imagine most of the maintenance funds would be spent on grass cutting, etc.

Rideron,

The problem with your scheme is that the State and Feds enable Detroit to capture the taxes they collect. So if Detroit throws a fit, "Mom & Dad" still have the upper plan and shut you down. Also, Detroit likely brings in more in state and federal funds than it pays in.