Ballgame at Riversoide Park? Better hurry - City negotiating with Matty

This just in, excerpted, from ex-Freepster Joel Thurtell at Joel on the Road:

Quote:

---

I asked [the mayor's office] if it was true that the mayor is talking to Matty about a sale of Riverside Park. My answer came by e-mail today:

Joel,
There are discussions to sell Riverside Park to Mr. Moroun.

Karen Dumas
Group Executive/Communications
Office of Mayor Dave Bing
City of Detroit

Manuel “Matty� Moroun needs the park land because without it, he wouldn’t be able to build a new bridge beside the old Ambassador.

Last week, the U.S. Coast Guard sent his application for a permit to build a new bridge back to Matty, saying he lacked the means to build a bridge when he didn’t own the land on which it would be situated.

---

The people's league which plays at clark park is looking into rehabbing and using riverside park for its 3rd field....

IF I was Dave Bing, and IF I decided it would be worth it to sell part of Riverside Park [[two big "ifs"), then I would definitely require him to turn over Michigan Central Station in the plan, and then I would hand it over to an entity that would preserve it for the long term, as in Buffalo. I doubt that will be part of the deal, though.

You didn't read Joel's whole blog. Hours after posting that email, he came back with this:

http://joelontheroad.com/?p=4132

Quote:

---

At 11:47 a.m., Karen Dumas of Mayor Bing’s office e-mailed a response. She seemed to be telling me that the answer is yes: Riverside Park IS INDEED for sale.

“There are discussions to sell Riverside Park to Mr. Mororun [[sic),” Dumas wrote.

But in a second e-mail at 4:32 p.m. on March 19 with the subject line, “CORRECTION,” Dumas wrote:

My sincere apologies for the typo. There are NOT discussion [[sic) to sell Riverside Park, to anyone.

Karen Dumas

Group Executive/Communications

Office of Mayor Dave Bing

In another e-mail at 4:51 p.m., Dumas wrote:

Joel,

Typing way too fast. We are NOT in discussions to sell the park, and are also currently still in litigation. My apologies for the typo/omission. Previously sent you an email clarifying this issue. Thanks.

Karen Dumas

That typographical error really had me worked up.

Now I feel great relief.

---

I don't get how the city is still in litigation when the ruling came down on october 5th and they had 90 days to vacate the property and the DIBC did not file their appeal in time....