Belle Isle lease proposal short on specifics on attraction improvement

[begingri]

Detroit — The proposed Belle Isle lease gives the state broad control of the island but doesn't include specifics for improving its most popular attractions, saying only that its obligations depend on available funds.

The agreement announced last week by Gov. Rick Snyder and Detroit Mayor Dave Bing is under fierce scrutiny as a skeptical City Council prepares to dissect it next week. The council, which must approve the lease, is scheduled to take up the issue Sept. 25.

Some critics worry that the lease — which turns Belle Isle into a state park requiring a vehicle entrance fee — does not guarantee the state will perform its obligations if funds are not available.

The plan also has raised concern that the park Detroiters consider an extension of their own backyard could become unwelcoming under new state park rules that could freeze out informal family reunions and fishing trips.

City Council President Charles Pugh said he hopes for a "seamless transition" to avoid alienating the island's most frequent visitors.

"I don't want people with annual family reunions there, people who fish there, people who go to barbecue there, young guys who just go to hang out and chill" to feel unwelcome, he said. "If we do this, I don't want anybody to notice."Pugh said he "needs to see more" before he is comfortable with the lease deal: "There are so many questions as to liability."

Full story [[with before and after pictures released by the city) at: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz26f8SySPs

[313WX]

Here's another pretty good break down of what's [[not) in the agreement.

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/09/15...ring-mon-sept/

[corktownyuppie]

Here's another pretty good break down of what's [[not) in the agreement.

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/09/15...ring-mon-sept/

Good break down. Let's remember that we are talking about Diane Bukowski here, so let's put the inflammatory rhetoric aside and just look at the facts.

Author states that the City gets nothing in return. Forgetting about any proposed capital improvements that may or may not come to fruition, depending on your views on the world, let's remember that Belle Isle is not an asset, it's a liability.

For review, an asset is something which generates money. A liability is something which costs money.

The Detroit/Windsor Tunnel? That's an asset. Who ever owns it gets the money [[after expenses) it generates from its operation. Those city-owned parking garages? Those are assets. Once you've taken out the cost of maintaining them, all the rent that's been collected goes to the city.

What's not an asset? A litter of 7 puppies. Oh yes, they're cute and all, but let's not kid ourselves. 7 puppies don't generate money. They cost money. You know what else wasn't an asset? The Pontiac Silverdome. It was costing millions of dollars just to keep the place from falling into disrepair...even when it wasn't generating a dime.

Now is Belle Isle an asset? Or a liability? Let's look at Central Park. Central Park doesn't generate any money. But wait, Central Par helps boost the property values of adjacent buildings, increasing tax collections. So you could argue that it's an indirect asset.

How about a liability? Well, technically, NYC doesn't spend money on the Central Park. It's all paid for by the Conservancy. So, no, not really. I guess you could argue that indirectly it's a liability because the protected land will never generate tax revenue. Fair enough.

So in summary, Central Park. Generates no money. Costs no money. Increases surrounding property values, and therefore, taxes.

Belle Isle? Generates no money. Increases surrounding property values? Not really. Costs money? Yes. $2-3MM in operating costs. $3MM in utilities.

So, Diane Bukowski, I agree that the city isn't receiving any money in return. But it's also unfair to say that it's not benefiting. By leasing the property to the state, that's like the neighbor taking 7 puppies off your hands. You no longer have to feed them, you no longer have to take them to the vet.

And like your next door neighbor, the state still allows you to play with the puppies...at a small, but reasonable cost of $10 per year. If you don't need to park on his driveway, then it's free.

Now if you think it's a bad deal? You think it's a bad deal. Fine. But at least the people writing about it should have to have show you the whole thing.

[Melocoton]

What's not an asset? A litter of 7 puppies. Oh yes, they're cute and all, but let's not kid ourselves. 7 puppies don't generate money.

What on earth are you talking about?

This looks bad, though. The proponents of a fee have defended it on the grounds that the fees would go towards park maintenance--now, it seems that they explicitly do not. So what reason do we have to presume that the state administration of Belle Isle would actually improve the island?

[Melocoton]

Also: the Governor's office needs to fire whatever intern made this atrocity of a photoshop rendering:



http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/09/15.../bi-trooper-2/

[Honky Tonk]

I agree, if THAT'S what they plan on doing with Belle Isle, I'm with Watson!

[Richard]

Now is Belle Isle an asset? Or a liability? Let's look at Central Park. Central Park doesn't generate any money. But wait, Central Par helps boost the property values of adjacent buildings, increasing tax collections. So you could argue that it's an indirect asset.

How about a liability? Well, technically, NYC doesn't spend money on the Central Park. It's all paid for by the Conservancy. So, no, not really. I guess you could argue that indirectly it's a liability because the protected land will never generate tax revenue. Fair enough.

So in summary, Central Park. Generates no money. Costs no money. Increases surrounding property values, and therefore, taxes.

Belle Isle? Generates no money. Increases surrounding property values? Not really. Costs money? Yes. $2-3MM in operating costs. $3MM in utilities.

So, Diane Bukowski, I agree that the city isn't receiving any money in return. But it's also unfair to say that it's not benefiting. By leasing the property to the state, that's like the neighbor taking 7 puppies off your hands. You no longer have to feed them, you no longer have to take them to the vet.

And like your next door neighbor, the state still allows you to play with the puppies...at a small, but reasonable cost of $10 per year. If you don't need to park on his driveway, then it's free.

Now if you think it's a bad deal? You think it's a bad deal. Fine. But at least the people writing about it should have to have show you the whole thing.

To me it all goes back to mismanagement by the city,it is a major asset for the city in terms of it falls into a quality of life parks are considered desirable.

How could it generate revenue? There are 300 slips at the marina,cities own slips everywhere so now it is a $2,000,000 a year loss right there.

So if the state takes over is that lease voided?

[corktownyuppie]

What on earth are you talking about?

This looks bad, though. The proponents of a fee have defended it on the grounds that the fees would go towards park maintenance--now, it seems that they explicitly do not.

This is a misunderstanding of the language combined with the author [[Bukowski's) failure to make it explicitly clear.

The fees do go toward park maintenance. They go to the State Fund. The State provides the park maintenance from that fund.

What the fees do not do is go toward island upgrades, meaning capital injections necessary [[$5 million, $10 million, $20 million, etc.) to re-furbish the buildings and the infrastructure on the island.

Right now the City pays $2.5 million to maintain the park. When the state operates it, the city will have that $2.5MM in its own pocket to do whatever they like.

The money collected by the annual pass goes to the state fund. The state is responsible for operating the park and uses that fund to pay for the operations.

So 2 questions...

[[1) Why didn't Bukowski make that clear?
[[2) What would you like the city to do with the extra $2.5 million dollars they will save?

[Detroitnerd]

The fees do go toward park maintenance. They go to the State Fund. The State provides the park maintenance from that fund.

But the earlier proposals on this forum had said that entry fees would be dedicated toward park maintenance.

This proposals says that entry fees go into the state fund, and the state will fund the island as it can.

[Zacha341]

Yeah, that's pretty bad. I'll have to add to my collection of WHAT NOT TO DO IN PHOTOSHOP!

Also: the Governor's office needs to fire whatever intern made this atrocity of a photoshop rendering:

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/09/15.../bi-trooper-2/

[corktownyuppie]

But the earlier proposals on this forum had said that entry fees would be dedicated toward park maintenance.

This proposals says that entry fees go into the state fund, and the state will fund the island as it can.

If that's the only sticking point, they'll totally be able to work that out in negotiations. I can't imagine that the entry fees collected could possibly be higher than the amount the City is already paying to operate the park.

Would it appease those who oppose if the state added language that stated that, "All funding from $10 stickers purchased by City of Detroit residents will be dedicated to Belle Isle's use"?

What if Detroiters don't buy enough stickers to operate the park? Is the State on the hook for dipping into the state fund to operate the island?

I think that a better route would be to guarantee that the State provide minimum levels of an operational standards that need to be met, and then hold their feet to the fire on it...with the threat the Landlord [[Detroit) can repossess for non-performance.

Still, though, if all the State did was maintain the current level of operational quality [[or non-quality), it's still putting $2-$3MM back into the City's General fund.

[Detroitnerd]

If that's the only sticking point, they'll totally be able to work that out in negotiations. I can't imagine that the entry fees collected could possibly be higher than the amount the City is already paying to operate the park.

Well, that's really beside the point I'm making.

The point I'm making is that the apparent majority of proponents of the fee on this board said the fee was needed to ensure the park was cared for.

Now that the issues are delinked, barely a peep from these posters.

Which suggests to me that promoting the institution of a fee was never really -- and isn't at all -- about funding upkeep. And so it's another opportunity to question what those motives really were in the first place.

[Melocoton]

The fees do go toward park maintenance. They go to the State Fund. The State provides the park maintenance from that fund.

What the fees do not do is go toward island upgrades, meaning capital injections necessary [[$5 million, $10 million, $20 million, etc.) to re-furbish the buildings and the infrastructure on the island.

That does not address the fact that the fee to Belle Isle has been defended on the grounds that it will improve Belle Isle--not just maintain it. According to the Detroit News article linked above, the deal makes no formal demands on the state to upgrade the park. In other words, there's nothing specific, as I understand it, in writing guaranteeing improvements. So, are we left to just trust that our benevolent state government will make Belle Isle a priority?

[DetBill]

Im not sure why people are getting hung up on whether its just going to be maintained or maintained and improved and by how much etc.. ?? Personally I think its pretty basic, we can argue all day what the state is going to and not going to do if they get the lease,, all one really has to do is travel around the state parks everywhere in the state [[ I certainly do) and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see they are well maintained, Im quite sure the state would have no interest in doing this if they werent going to. The ten dollar fee covers entry to all of these parks, not just Belle Isle so its a deal no matter how you cut it.. If they put improvements into it,, which I am sure there will be some , its going to be a big plus,,, They keep their parks clean,, unlike now, they keep them supervised, unlike now , and they generally maintain them , unlike now.
Lets go the Watson route and fight this,, keep it with the city, and let the park continue to sink to an even lower low. We plain and simple have no money or resources so do the math. The place is a emabarrasement at times during the week to show visitors let alone residents..I go there very often during the week and its just sad to see so many great things just falling apart and the amount of garbage people throw everywhere [[ except the empty garbage pails). I give major kudos to the many volunteers who are trying their best but it might be a good shot in the arm to them also to see some help. The plain fact is Detroit is broke folks and it aint going to get prettier on Belle Isle if we dont go with the state, Infact, it will get worse,, I really dont understand all the skepticism as to whether the state will guarantee more improvements or how much or if its going to be material or minor improvements etc..
Compared to the direction the place is going and headed,, having someone just cut the grass, clean it up and keep it safe will be a big improvement.

[Honky Tonk]

"the amount of garbage people throw everywhere [[except the empty garbage pails)."

And here you've hit the nail on the head. No matter how much it get's improved, if the people using it aren't going to care, it'll end up pretty much looking like it does now. You can lead a horse to water, but.....

[bailey]

Well, that's really beside the point I'm making.

The point I'm making is that the apparent majority of proponents of the fee on this board said the fee was needed to ensure the park was cared for.

Now that the issues are delinked, barely a peep from these posters.

Which suggests to me that promoting the institution of a fee was never really -- and isn't at all -- about funding upkeep. And so it's another opportunity to question what those motives really were in the first place.

Well, Dnerd... you wont have to worry about it now. The valiant and ever vigilant city council has taken up the cause.

Detroit City Council: Belle Isle proposal dead in the water
http://www.freep.com/article/2012091...er?odyssey=tab

... Shorter version? Detroit City Council to Governor,"Drop Dead!"

[313WX]

That's fine.

Now Snyder and Bing can come up with a better plan.

I'm not necessarily against the state managing it, I just want the specifics of what exactly they're going to do with the park and how.

It's a typical businessman tactic [[and yes, Bing and Snyder are businessmen) to bait you with some vague deal then switch up from what they initially sold you.

Given the bad blood with the state of Michigan and Detroit, I want all hands out in the open.

[bailey]

That's fine.

Now Snyder and Bing can come up with a better plan.

...or they can just drop it and walk away. Of course then all the same folks will be screaming about being "abandoned" by the State and the Governor when that happens.

[Hermod]

...or they can just drop it and walk away. Of course then all the same folks will be screaming about being "abandoned" by the State and the Governor when that happens.

Council to governor: "Just give us all the money we ask for and that is all you need to do."

[Detroitnerd]

Well, Dnerd... you wont have to worry about it now. The valiant and ever vigilant city council has taken up the cause.

I think as long as people's motives aren't out front and clearly and consistently stated, we're going to have trouble on our hands.

[Detroitnerd]

Council to governor: "Just give us all the money we ask for and that is all you need to do."

The money they ask for? By that do you mean the money the city was promised and then that was snatched away? If anybody broke an agreement, it was Lansing.

Of course, they had to pay for those tax breaks for businesses. In fact, they even went beyond getting rid of the hated SBT, they lavished MORE tax breaks on business and the wealthy.

By the way, where are alla them jobs? Given all the tax breaks for business, shouldn't we be rolling in prosperity?

Oh, but pay no attention to those wise men behind the curtain in the Capitol. It's "entitled" Detroit "asking" for money.

[Gorath]

I'm not necessarily against the state managing it, I just want the specifics of what exactly they're going to do with the park and how.

What were they going to do with it? I think turn it into a state park. I think that means they will keep the beach and then turn the rest of the island into a campground.

Seriously, I don't know what they were going to do with it. I don't think the state had a plan either.

[DJ Tom T]

It's too bad in this case that City Council has proven to be so inept. Their total lack of credibility due to a proven track record of ineptitude is undermining what actually may be a sound case for rejecting this particular iteration of the Belle Isle deal. I guess the sun even shines on a dog's ass once in a while.

[detmsp]

I'm with the state on this one. Even if the state does nothing but keep the status quo, they will have taken a financial burden off the city's hands. Also, a comprehensive plan for what to do with the park will likely take months to develop and will require hiring a consulting firm. I can't blame the state for not wanting to go through that without having a lease agreement in place. If they don't go through that level of analysis and just sort of shoot from the hip, they run the risk of making "promises" that they end up not being able to keep.

It's a little bit like showing up for a job interview and having the boss tell you "we want you to run a project. Why don't you take a few weeks to develop a plan, bring it back to me and we will consider hiring you."

[Mark Smiles]

I’m sure the State Legislature could simply pass a piece of legislation and simply take the island.

I don’t think it really matters to someone enjoying the park, what governmental agency is running it.

The park is public property and will continue to be public property.

It will simply be shifted from one governmental pocket to another, within the State of Michigan.