Detroiters approve Belle Isle admissions fee by 9 to 1 ratio, says Councilman Tate

**corktownyuppie** · September-24-12, 06:02 PM

For what it's worth...Councilman Tate said today in a Freep chat that his constituent calls and e-mails were 9 to 1 in favor of an admissions fee to Belle Isle.

I think they'll get a deal done.

**wolverine** · September-24-12, 07:57 PM

I'd definitely be willing to pay the admission fee + a donation on my next visit to Belle Isle. I think crossing the bridge by foot and bicycle should be free for young Detroiters that may not be able to afford the fee. Or perhaps an incentive to get folks to walk and get some exercise. But all vehicles should have to pay. If you can afford to drive a vehicle, that means you can afford to pay an admission fee.

I don't drive a car, but I'd gladly pay it anyway. Belle Isle is a gem and needs all the assistance it can get.

**Wheels** · September-24-12, 08:05 PM

Oh no! Next they are going to want people to turn over their sub-woofers at the bridge!

**Bham1982** · September-24-12, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

If you can afford to drive a vehicle, that means you can afford to pay an admission fee.

Totally irrelevent. What does one have to do with the other?

"If you can afford to purchase and wear shoes, you can afford to pay an admission fee to walk down the street".

Is public policy now based on what people can afford?

Belle Isle is a municipal park, free and open to the public. There may be no option but to relenquish to the state, and pay a fee, but these arguments that "most people can probably afford $10, therefore we should charge $10" are absolutely nonsensical. They're two totally separate issues.

And I am highly skeptical that Detroit taxpayers approve giving up their primary municipal park to the state, and then instituting a $10 fee, by a 9-to-1 ratio.

**corktownyuppie** · September-24-12, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

]
And I am highly skeptical that Detroit taxpayers approve giving up their primary municipal park to the state, and then instituting a $10 fee, by a 9-to-1 ratio.

Hey now. Let's not put words in my [[or Councilman Tate's) mouth. He only said that constituent calls numbered 9-to-1 in favor of a fee. Not that they approved to the state proposal 9-to-1.

Just clarifying.

**ronaldj** · September-24-12, 09:42 PM

Are people losing sight of the fact that the $10/per year fee allows access to all state parks. 10 visits to Belle Isle and the fee is amortized. Consequent visits "free".

**mwilbert** · September-24-12, 09:57 PM

Belle Isle is a municipal park, free and open to the public. There may be no option but to relenquish to the state, and pay a fee, but these arguments that "most people can probably afford $10, therefore we should charge $10" are absolutely nonsensical. They're two totally separate issues.

I don't see that these are separate issues. One of the most important consequences of the change in the park's status would be the effect on its users. That magnitude of that effect would seem to me to importantly depend upon whether the people who use the park will continue to be able to do so. If they can easily afford it, then the negative effect would probably be minor. If not, then not.

**wolverine** · September-25-12, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Totally irrelevent. What does one have to do with the other?

"If you can afford to purchase and wear shoes, you can afford to pay an admission fee to walk down the street".

Is public policy now based on what people can afford?

Belle Isle is a municipal park, free and open to the public. There may be no option but to relenquish to the state, and pay a fee, but these arguments that "most people can probably afford $10, therefore we should charge $10" are absolutely nonsensical. They're two totally separate issues.

In and outside of Michigan, I've been to many urban parks operated by various levels of government. They charge for parking. They do not charge pedestrians for entry. Privately owned parks [[like Amusement Parks) charge for cars to enter. They don't impose additional fees on pedestrians or folks arriving by mass transit. Based on that rationale, it would be a good idea to charge a single fee for those that enter by car, but not charge visitors that walk or ride a bicycle.

Cars are wear and tear on the park. Theoretically if cars were not allowed in the park, better hard surfaces could be employed that would eliminate the need for drainage and extend the lifespan of that surface up to 10 times. But Belle Isle would always accommodate cars. And whomever decides to operate the park will end up spending a good chunk of the budget replacing and repairing roads and parking areas in comparison to what the lion's share should be spent on....lawn maintenance, landscaping, pavilions, etc.

That's kind of why I see toll booths at urban parks......

Cars are expensive things to own and operate. If you want to take your vehicle to Belle Isle, I would believe you'd have the means to pay the couple of bucks. At the same time, we shouldn't discourage our youth from making good use of the parks. The last thing I want to see is kids stuck paying a fee. They don't own cars. They ride around on bicycles, skateboards, or walk. They should be granted free access.

Is public policy now based on what people can afford?

It's based on your impact. And yes....the federal government pays me to ride a bicycle to work and it's too expensive to own a car where I live. Meanwhile those who drive are faced with gasoline taxes, parking sticker fees, city streets operating fees, mandatory emissions tests, state licensing fees.

**DetroitPlanner** · September-25-12, 08:15 AM

The annual State Park Pass is $10. This is the cost of 2.5 gallons of gas. PER year! When you consider this also opens the doors to countless other parks its a bargain.

**Bham1982** · September-25-12, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't see that these are separate issues. One of the most important consequences of the change in the park's status would be the effect on its users. That magnitude of that effect would seem to me to importantly depend upon whether the people who use the park will continue to be able to do so. If they can easily afford it, then the negative effect would probably be minor. If not, then not.

I agree with you that the relative price is relevant for assessing potential patronage, but disagree that it has anything to do with whether people can "afford it".

I don't make my spending decisions based on whether or not the purchase will put me in the poorhouse. I suspect most people are the same. Spending decisions are more of a cost/benefit ratio, rather than whether it's something that will have a material impact on our finances.

And I do think the $10 fee will have an impact on patronage, so needs careful thought before the changeover. Many current users of the park will not pay $10 to visit, and those that do may use the park differently than before.

**milesdriven** · September-25-12, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

The annual State Park Pass is $10. This is the cost of 2.5 gallons of gas. PER year! When you consider this also opens the doors to countless other parks its a bargain.

$29 per year for non-residents, or $8 per day, while Ohio's state parks offer free entry to both residents and non-residents. I already have my Michigan non-resident recreation passport, but I would be reluctant to shell out that much money for a quick visit to the island.

**Bham1982** · September-25-12, 08:48 AM

Are Michigan state parks free if you enter by foot or bike?

I think this would be a reasonable compromise. If they go the State Park route, allow Detroiters free entry, as long as they don't arrive by car.

**corktownyuppie** · September-25-12, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Are Michigan state parks free if you enter by foot or bike?

I think this would be a reasonable compromise. If they go the State Park route, allow Detroiters free entry, as long as they don't arrive by car.

First, I don't know if Michigan State Parks are free by foot or bike...I presume so.

What I do know is that with the Belle Isle proposal, Detroiters [[and anyone else, for that matter) were always going to be allowed free entry as long as they don't arrive by car.

I wonder if that message is getting lost as the story gets to the masses? It's always been proposed to charge cars only.

**rjlj** · September-25-12, 10:53 AM

Rec pass information, where it is required and where it is not required.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10365_55798_58027-247965--,00.html

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

First, I don't know if Michigan State Parks are free by foot or bike...I presume so.

What I do know is that with the Belle Isle proposal, Detroiters [[and anyone else, for that matter) were always going to be allowed free entry as long as they don't arrive by car.

I wonder if that message is getting lost as the story gets to the masses? It's always been proposed to charge cars only.

**drjeff** · September-25-12, 11:18 AM

I pay the extra $10 for state parks every year when I renew my vehicle registration. It's pretty simple.

I suspect city council is going to vote this down however, because it makes so much sense for the city.

**Vic01** · September-25-12, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by milesdriven

$29 per year for non-residents, or $8 per day, while Ohio's state parks offer free entry to both residents and non-residents. I already have my Michigan non-resident recreation passport, but I would be reluctant to shell out that much money for a quick visit to the island.

The $$ that you've already paid would also cover the "quick visit to the island"... assuming, of course, that the City Council goes along with the lease plan as is.

**Hypestyles** · September-25-12, 03:35 PM

i hope sensible, pragmatic amendments are made to the agreement, with a means of ensuring responsibility for improvements, then it can be implemented..

**downtownguy** · September-26-12, 12:36 PM

A third of Detroiters live below the poverty level. Another good chunk don't do much better. I'm tired of hearing everybody say how insignificant a $10 fee is. To a single mom, whose expenses always exceed her income -- and who can't afford to take her kids on vacation -- $10 is a lot. "Well if she can afford a car..." BS. Let me repeat that. BS! She probably can't "afford" her car. And she may not be able to afford the gas to drive there. Add one more hurdle, and she's priced out of the market. A market which she really couldn't afford to be in in the first place, except that she wanted to take her kids away from her dismal neighborhood to play in a beautiful park.

I'd be all for a $10 fee if there was an equitable way to provide for residents for which "only $10" is a brick wall.

Look at it this way. If $10 is small change to you, what would you do if the fee was $100? What about $1,000? For some folks with little or no disposable income, it doesn't matter. Squeezing $10 out of their budget is no different than you finding a spare $1,000 in your budget.

**bailey** · September-26-12, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by downtownguy

A third of Detroiters live below the poverty level. Another good chunk don't do much better. I'm tired of hearing everybody say how insignificant a $10 fee is. To a single mom, whose expenses always exceed her income -- and who can't afford to take her kids on vacation -- $10 is a lot. "Well if she can afford a car..." BS. Let me repeat that. BS! She probably can't "afford" her car. And she may not be able to afford the gas to drive there. Add one more hurdle, and she's priced out of the market. A market which she really couldn't afford to be in in the first place, except that she wanted to take her kids away from her dismal neighborhood to play in a beautiful park.

I'd be all for a $10 fee if there was an equitable way to provide for residents for which "only $10" is a brick wall.

Look at it this way. If $10 is small change to you, what would you do if the fee was $100? What about $1,000? For some folks with little or no disposable income, it doesn't matter. Squeezing $10 out of their budget is no different than you finding a spare $1,000 in your budget.

Um.. pump the brakes there pal. As is pointed out repeatedly, arriving by public transit or walking/biking in is going to be free.

So, your single mom can hop the bus with the kiddos and save the gas and entry fee. It'll just cost bus fare.

OR... since the city could have had the opportunity to redeploy the money it's currently throwing at Belle Isle...maybe that strapped single mom would have seen the park close to her home actually taken care of instead of being completely neglected because of lack of funds? [[not that we have to worry about that... as the council has made clear).

**DetroitPlanner** · September-26-12, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

So, your single mom can hop the bus with the kiddos and save the gas and entry fee. It'll just cost bus fare.

Actually if you're a single mom with a bunch of kids, taking the bus would cost a lot more than $10 if you factor in the round trip and the transfers. However, by charging a fee you would get a lot of the riff raff off of the island, so it would be a great environment to bring the kids to. Not only that, people who go would be more inclined to carpool meaning the need for fewer parking spaces. Parking spaces equal drainage and runoff problems.

**Gistok** · September-26-12, 03:20 PM

Also, lets not forget that if it's just going to a waterfront park... there's plenty underutilized parks along the east Riverfront near Belle Isle. Those are always free.

**wolverine** · September-27-12, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by downtownguy

A third of Detroiters live below the poverty level. Another good chunk don't do much better. I'm tired of hearing everybody say how insignificant a $10 fee is. To a single mom, whose expenses always exceed her income -- and who can't afford to take her kids on vacation -- $10 is a lot. "Well if she can afford a car..." BS. Let me repeat that. BS! She probably can't "afford" her car. And she may not be able to afford the gas to drive there. Add one more hurdle, and she's priced out of the market. A market which she really couldn't afford to be in in the first place, except that she wanted to take her kids away from her dismal neighborhood to play in a beautiful park.

I'd be all for a $10 fee if there was an equitable way to provide for residents for which "only $10" is a brick wall.

Look at it this way. If $10 is small change to you, what would you do if the fee was $100? What about $1,000? For some folks with little or no disposable income, it doesn't matter. Squeezing $10 out of their budget is no different than you finding a spare $1,000 in your budget.

In my post I say visits to the park are free for everyone under 18 that is able to get to the bridge. I wouldn't discuss equitability and car ownership in the same post. How about accomodating and reasonable. If you drive, you pay. If you are a senior and drive, you're free. If you're disabled and drive, you're free. If you're a single mom and driving 6 kids to the park....$3...the vehicle fee. $3 for a day at the park for the whole family or $10 for the whole family an entire year. And if that fee can provide a safer and more enjoyable experience it's a win for everyone.

I understand people are squeezing by on nickels and dimes downtownguy but that park is a nonessential service and expensive to run. The park isn't going to take care of itself. Detroit's at a crossroads where they must decide where to make cuts, where to raise or lower taxes, and where to charge fees to keep things going.