Belle Isle as a State Park? [UPDATE: Snyder Withdraws Offer]

**Flintoid** · April-08-12, 08:49 PM

State will withdraw an offer for the state to lease Belle Isle

I think this would be fantastic for the island. The DNR could really pour some resources in here with the help of the Belle Isle Conservancy and other partners. Plus, I like their idea of not enacting an entry fee until at least a year after taking over the island. Let the residents see how the state can improve the park and they will be more than willing to pay the fee. Plus, if you can afford to drive to Belle Isle, I think you can spare $10 a year that will also get you into any state park across Michigan. This is a really exciting aspect of this consent agreement!

http://www.freep.com/article/2012040...e-free-anymore

**corktownyuppie** · April-08-12, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Flintoid

I think this would be fantastic for the island. The DNR could really pour some resources in here with the help of the Belle Isle Conservancy and other partners. Plus, I like their idea of not enacting an entry fee until at least a year after taking over the island. Let the residents see how the state can improve the park and they will be more than willing to pay the fee. Plus, if you can afford to drive to Belle Isle, I think you can spare $10 a year that will also get you into any state park across Michigan. This is a really exciting aspect of this consent agreement!

http://www.freep.com/article/2012040...e-free-anymore

I agree, this is great. And seriously, if you can't afford the $.80 per month to get admission, then maybe you should go to one of the many other free parks in the city.

**Johnnny5** · April-08-12, 09:10 PM

Awesome! Awesome! Awesome!

I so hope that this leads to the addition of a public boat launching facility on the island. With Riverside still closed and St Jean possibly next a well run launch on Belle Isle would be perfect.

**casscorridor** · April-08-12, 09:12 PM

If the island is improve upon-- restoring unkempt sections, reopening the aquarium, zoo and boat club and adding amenities such as more restrooms and enhanced recreation fields-- I would support it. Otherwise, it is just a farce, another city asset squandered in the name of austerity. I just highly doubt the state would invest any serious sum of money, as would be required to get the park back to world-class status.

And to corktownyuppie, there aren't many great parks in Detroit at all. Clark Park is an exception, as is Peck Park, Campus Martius and Grand Circus. And there are very few large parks, most of them are very small. Rouge Park is big, but it isn't very well kept and far from the center of the city. Chandler park is similar in that respect, although it does offer a county-run water park. Detroit needs to use some of its vacant land for parks, especially near Midtown/Downtown... there are very few options.

**313WX** · April-08-12, 09:48 PM

Couldn't the city accomplish the same thing?

Why does the state have to come in and take over the park?

**noenaim** · April-08-12, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Couldn't the city accomplish the same thing?

Why does the state have to come in and take over the park?

No the city can't accomplish same thing they can't even keep the street lights on.

**Johnnny5** · April-08-12, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Couldn't the city accomplish the same thing?

I think the deterioration and closures on the island over the past decade prove that they could not. The state taking over the park is a win, win for everyone. Detroit gets a properly maintained park and Detroiter's get to share the financial burden of maintaining the park with the entire state.

**professorscott** · April-08-12, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by noenaim

No the city can't accomplish same thing they can't even keep the street lights on.

I would put it differently. Yes, the City could maintain Belle Isle, but under the circumstances they ought not to spend money on such things. If circumstances were different, certainly. But it is more important to those of us who live and/or work in Detroit that streetlights work, buses come something close to when scheduled, and a police officer comes when you call.

So long as none of those things - basic, critical services - are in order, the City ought to concentrate on necessities and not on very nice-to-have things like a beautiful island park. I am a big fan of the park - I proposed to my wife of 23 years there, for instance - but we need to prioritize. That has been the essential failure of the past fifty or sixty years, a failure to prioritize.

I think it is fantastic to have a Belle Isle State Park. And to overcome the problem of very poor people not wanting to pay an additional fee, perhaps at some point we can persuade Mr. Freeland and Mr. Asche [[or whoever is running DDOT, or whatever succeeds it, by then) to return city bus service to the park, which operated for almost a century before being cut a very few years ago.

All this is, as usual, just IYKOPVHO. [[Attaboy to the first person to successfully parse the acronym.)

**leland_palmer** · April-08-12, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Couldn't the city accomplish the same thing?

Why does the state have to come in and take over the park?

The city can't even keep the grass cut at their parks.

**corktownyuppie** · April-08-12, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

I just highly doubt the state would invest any serious sum of money, as would be required to get the park back to world-class status.

That's a bet I'll gladly take. In April of 2013, if there are not concrete, tangible improvements to both the operations and the aesthetics of Belle Isle, I will eat crow. What the state has done with Tri-Centennial/Milliken State park has been wonderful compared to when it was St. Aubin park owned by the city.

**corktownyuppie** · April-08-12, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Couldn't the city accomplish the same thing?

Why does the state have to come in and take over the park?

Could? Probably. Would? Probably not. We've been talking about making Belle Isle a nicer place for 20 years. It hasn't happened yet.

And isn't that really what matters? If Belle Isle is a nicer place for everyone, then does it really matter who's in charge, or whose name is on the sign?

**313WX** · April-08-12, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

I think the deterioration and closures on the island over the past decade prove that they could not. The state taking over the park is a win, win for everyone. Detroit gets a properly maintained park and Detroiter's get to share the financial burden of maintaining the park with the entire state.

The thing is revenue generated from park-use wasn't apart of the equation. If the city applied the same plan that the state is applying, we're essentially accomplishing the same thing while leaving the park in thr city's ownership.

**313WX** · April-08-12, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

That's a bet I'll gladly take. In April of 2013, if there are not concrete, tangible improvements to both the operations and the aesthetics of Belle Isle, II will eat crow. What the state has done with Tri-Centennial/Milliken State park has been wonderful compared to when it was St. Aubin park owned by the city.

It's true that the state has did a nice job with Tri-Centennial park. However, comparing it to Belle Isle is like comparing NYC to Grand Rapids. It's going to take a lot more money and upkeep to maintain a park the size of Belle Isle. I mean the state isn't necessarily swimming in money either, and they do have higher priorities than maintaining most in Lansing nor their representatives will use. The money's going to be coming out of the same general fund evert state-owned park uses. What I would propose instead is Instituting a fee, but instead leave the ownership in the city's hands and transfer management to a non-partisan board, where Detroiters elect three citizens, each county a elects one and the state elects one. The only duty these members have is to oversee the park part time with a small yearly stipend to tote.I

**corktownyuppie** · April-08-12, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

The thing is revenue generated from park-use wasn't apart of the equation. If the city applied the same plan that the state is applying, we're essentially accomplishing the same thing while leaving the park in thr city's ownership.

That's the problem, though. Because Belle Isle isn't a separate entity from the City, any money that Belle Isle charged wouldn't stay in Belle Isle if it was run by the city. All that money goes right into the sinkhole of our budget deficits.

And this problem is all over the city. There are very reasonable economic solutions to some [[though not all) of our money problems. But the solutions come at a political cost. And so when we consolidate many of the 65 people who encompass the payroll department at DPD with other city payroll departments, many will have to lose jobs. Next thing you know, people are screaming about why some of that Belle Isle money can't be used to keep these people employed.

Of course, the real problem is that if a job only requires 10 people to do it, then hiring 30 people is just wasting money.

And no one has answered my question yet...if the park is nicer for everyone, Detroiters included, then does it really matter who runs it? Hell, I don't care if Brooks Patterson runs it.

A nicer Belle Isle makes Detroit a more attractive city. And God knows we have plenty of ugly to show as it is. Why not do something that will help change that?

**Gistok** · April-09-12, 12:16 AM

Well I think this is a no-brainer... the park has been in decline for decades... and with the State taking over Tri-Centennial [[Milliken) Park, and sinking some serious money into it... why would the state not invest money into one of the city's.... AND STATE'S.... crown jewels?? Dredge the lagoons, drain the swampy forest, do something with the Belle Isle Zoo, reopen the aquarium... good Lord how can it NOT get better?? And yes a $10 fee for an annual pass... who would you rather trust with spending that money on the park... the city or the state?? Again a no brainer...

**milesdriven** · April-09-12, 07:57 AM

As an Ohio resident, it will cost me $8/day, or $29/year for a parks passport. That's enough to make me think twice before visiting the island.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-09-12, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by milesdriven

As an Ohio resident [[AKA freeloader), it will cost me $8/day, or $29/year for a parks passport. That's enough to make me think twice before visiting the island.

Fixed that for you.

In all seriousness, that is a legitimite concern. Would you spend that to get into parks closer to Ohio such as Sterling or Lake Erie Metropark? What if along with the fee the cost of the attractions was sharply reduced? If it included a free visit to the aquarium or conservatory? What if someone arrives by boat and parks at a marina? How do we make sure they are not sneaking in?

A balance needs to be struck to make sure what the region has that attract people still attracts them.

**sumas** · April-09-12, 08:26 AM

I resisted for years the concept of paid admision to Belle Isle. I love that place and if that's what it takes, I say go for it. I've got my state sticker and if need be I'll load my car with neighbors and kids. Even pay for the extra "freight"

I want canoeing back, horse trails back, bike rentals back, the boat club back and in short clean and open bathrooms.

**iheartthed** · April-09-12, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

I resisted for years the concept of paid admision to Belle Isle. I love that place and if that's what it takes, I say go for it. I've got my state sticker and if need be I'll load my car with neighbors and kids. Even pay for the extra "freight"

I want canoeing back, horse trails back, bike rentals back, the boat club back and in short clean and open bathrooms.

I agree with this comment. I thought the city should have tolled the Belle Isle bridge a long time ago.

I think it should remain free for people who opt to enter on non-motorized modes of transportation, or those who enter by public transit should that service ever be restored to the island.

**Johnnny5** · April-09-12, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think it should remain free for people who opt to enter on non-motorized modes of transportation, or those who enter by public transit should that service ever be restored to the island.

I assume the $10 annual permit is for vehicles only, so pedestrians and those taking the bus should be able to access the park free of charge [[Assuming the state takeover actually happens and a bus once again provides service to the island). I've been to a lot of state parks in Michigan and can not think of any that charge an entry fee for anything other than vehicles.

**oladub** · April-09-12, 09:22 AM

Admission and State park status sound like a good idea. If Detroit charged enough money and that money was well accounted for, the State need not be involved. $5 per individual, $7.50 per family with children per visit might work with stiff fines for litterers. Money could be plowed back into maintenance, improvements, and security. I don't think $5 would be too much compared with the cost of movies, restaurant meals, or a pack of cigarettes.

Another idea would be to give the State a fifty year lease so, assuming things turn around in Detroit, Belle Isle would revert to Detroit.

Meanwhile, if it were a State park, whose police force would be responsible for security; State Police, Park Police, or Detroit Police?

edited to add:
A summer boat ride from one of the places the Bob-Lo boat used to dock downtown to Belle-Isle would be a fun option.

**corktownyuppie** · April-09-12, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

It's true that the state has did a nice job with Tri-Centennial park. However, comparing it to Belle Isle is like comparing NYC to Grand Rapids. It's going to take a lot more money and upkeep to maintain a park the size of Belle Isle. I mean the state isn't necessarily swimming in money either, and they do have higher priorities than maintaining most in Lansing nor their representatives will use. The money's going to be coming out of the same general fund evert state-owned park uses. What I would propose instead is Instituting a fee, but instead leave the ownership in the city's hands and transfer management to a non-partisan board, where Detroiters elect three citizens, each county a elects one and the state elects one. The only duty these members have is to oversee the park part time with a small yearly stipend to tote.I

Your idea would have been fine by me, and it's similar to the Cobo idea and the Detroit Zoo idea which has worked great. It's worth noting that Belle Isle will still be "owned" by the city. It's being leased to the state.

I know there's a lot of distrust between the city and the state, but their track record with state parks is rock solid.

Here's my general take on this. We have the city, whose politicians and citizens have resisted outsourcing the management for decades. And we have the state saying, "Something needs to change."

It's not that I trust the state more than the city because of who's in office. It's that the city has spent so long denying reality that it's hard to take their opinions seriously. Remember how much the city fought the "takeover" of the Detroit Zoo and Cobo Hall?

Now if as recent as 60 days ago, the mayor and city council said, "Belle Isle is a mess, and we'd love to have a tri-county non-partisan entity responsible for its management," I'm sure people would have HAPPILY agreed to it.

The problem is that it never happened. And so it came down to either a city-run or a state-run park. I'm not necessarily a fan of Lansing, but at least they were dealing with reality.

Let's see how this plays out. I'd be very impressed if Michigan State Police or Rangers were assigned for the security of it.

**Danny** · April-09-12, 10:58 AM

Since the state conquered Detroit and most of its city government will be under Gov. Snyder, The Nerd's control. Belle Isle would make a great state park. New facilities, better greenscape and hopefully re-open the Belle Isle Zoo and aquarium.

**Gistok** · April-09-12, 11:13 AM

I agree with a lot of ideas... except Oladub... I think the $5 individual/$7.50 per family per visit is a bit steep. Keeping it in line with all the state parks annual pass concept is probably fairer than charging a per visit fee.

Dredging the canals, and cutting back on the vegetation is a great idea. Canoeing would be great to return to the island.

I'm not so sure about a boat launch on the island... although I'm not against the idea. It would require additional parking [[although the Grand Prix pit stop area would have plenty of parking space) for cars and trailers.

But what needs to be done is take care of the drainage issues on the eastern part of the forested island... and some major forestry work in that area.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-09-12, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Dredging the canals, and cutting back on the vegetation is a great idea. Canoeing would be great to return to the island.

But what needs to be done is take care of the drainage issues on the eastern part of the forested island... and some major forestry work in that area.

Dredge the canals and use the dirt to fill the low spots! Get a two-fer!