Detroit council OKs its own lease deal for Belle Isle: 10 years instead of 30

**motz** · October-16-13, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Baselinepunk

Hmmmm, not like I really give two shits what Con [[Kahn) thinks -- he does note that it will take much more money to bring the Island up to standards; the figure used [[6 mill) is too low considering the amount of upgrades. So chew on that if you may.

$6 million is better than the $0 worth of upgrades that was being done by the city. I think that anything in this situation is better than nothing. If they couple that $6 million with various non-profit organizations, such as Friends of Belle Isle, the aquarium people, those who take care of the conservatory, the Detroit Zoo [[expand/renovate the Belle Isle Zoo?), etc we will see way, way more than $6m in upgrades. The question is, does The Shady Nerd have what it takes to coordinate a true restoration of one of Detroit's most unique features?

**Hermod** · October-16-13, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by motz

$6 million is better than the $0 worth of upgrades that was being done by the city. I think that anything in this situation is better than nothing. If they couple that $6 million with various non-profit organizations, such as Friends of Belle Isle, the aquarium people, those who take care of the conservatory, the Detroit Zoo [[expand/renovate the Belle Isle Zoo?), etc we will see way, way more than $6m in upgrades. The question is, does The Shady Nerd have what it takes to coordinate a true restoration of one of Detroit's most unique features?

The governor can't be any worse than the clownsil, the mayors, and the friends and family that loaf in the city parks department.

**Vic01** · October-16-13, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

No it wasn't. The original deal was for a 90 year lease. After the first 30 years, the City would have the right to terminate the lease, otherwise it would automatically renew for 30 more years. Same deal after the second 30 year period. So effectively - 90 year lease.

It was revised after the first set of protests, but Council tabled the discussion and never voted on the revisions.

No offense... but I remember it as a 30 yr lease, with 10 yr increments.

Could you provide documentation of the "90 yr Lease" plan?

**Baselinepunk** · October-16-13, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

The governor can't be any worse than the clownsil, the mayors, and the friends and family that loaf in the city parks department.

So then, let's just throw our hands up and say "What the fuck ever", then.

I guess everyone has to get a piece of that public pie, and since everyone else did it, let's just have the State walk all over us, too.

Fucking brilliant.

**Eber Brock Ward** · October-16-13, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Baselinepunk

So then, let's just throw our hands up and say "What the fuck ever", then.

I guess everyone has to get a piece of that public pie, and since everyone else did it, let's just have the State walk all over us, too.

Fucking brilliant.

The state has a track record of success with its parks. The city doesn't. So we know 100% we are getting walked over now, but the odds of the state walking over us are less than 100% because we don't know how it will work out.

In Detroit, I generally use "Is it better for the citizens?" as a litmus test, regardless of who has control, ownership, or whatever. I don't care if it's privatized to Martians, I just care if the citizens get the best possible services in the most available manner, given the feasible options on the table.

Right now the only two options are the city and the state.

**Zug** · October-16-13, 02:57 PM

As I mentioned in the previous Belle Isle lease thread, I think people...including reporters...are overlooking that increased State park passport sales will allow the DNR to secure more bond money. That's where the real money for improvements will come from. The DNR/State gets a benefit from controlling Belle Isle. Detroit gets benefits too [[and I look forward to these benefits), but people will still have to pay $11/year [[and I don't think there's a guarantee that it will remain only $11/year in the future)

Sure, $11 is less than some people pay for a lunch...but if the city charged $11/year to go to Belle Isle, it would be used as an example of liberals taking more money from the public...and many suburbanites would choose not to go to Belle Isle instead of paying $11. The State make people pay to go to Belle Isle, and people call it the State helping the city in a time of financial hardship [[yes, I know, you get to go to other State parks too).

**Baselinepunk** · October-16-13, 03:18 PM

Eber - -

My comment was toward the mentally of folks around in the area. You give an inch, they take a mile. I'm sure you are very familiar with that saying.

I love the State park system. I use it quite frequently, have worked with them and know a fair amount of people there; however, the State does not have such a stellar rep like you claim. The Head of the DNR a while back got in some serious shit over how she was handling the budget, closing down parks that didn't need to be close during some made up budget crisis. Apparently, she over looked 1.5 million in cash .... just a minor oversight, I'm sure.

Also, the State DNR has a history of asking taxpayers for cash, then the money goes elsewhere. Johnny Engler fucked the funding up for the DNR, which was supposed to be self-supporting, by raiding it. Then, recently, the DNR came with hat in hand to the taxpayer again to approve a 10 dollar fee for plates to admit you to the parks. It was supposed to infuse the budget with all kinds of cash so that the DNR didn't have to keep asking for money. Guess what? That 10 fee is now 11 dollars and instead of investing that money into conservation and management practices, the DNR is now supposed to forgo other commitments and sink cash here? Where there is already a State park just down the road. Oh, good gravy!

Wow, how did that happen? Perhaps the same way the prices for camping have jumped over the last ten year to almost triple than it once was. Of course, this increase was supposed to "bring us in line with other State parks in the country".

What BS. Eventually, the Island will be priced out of the commoner with little disposable cash on hand. In not for profits, we take a "user-centric" approach. How are current users going to benefit from this new, and wonderful change? They don't have a pot to piss in but in order to get on the island now they'll have to pay a 11 dollar fee for something that was once free. You see, Snyder is so slick that he even has the DNR doing his bidding -- and trust me, folks inside are none too happy about it. And has been able to dupe you and other into thinking that this is the magic bullet that will cure all.

Real nice.

**EastsideAl** · October-16-13, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Zug

[[yes, I know, you get to go to other State parks too)

This has been held out by some as one of the benefits of the proposed admission fee for Belle Isle. But, other than the already-free Milliken Park on the Riverwalk, where is the nearest state park to Detroit?

I have a vague recollection of going ice fishing with my grandfather near one up by Algonac, but other than that I don't think I've ever had occasion to use a state park in Michigan, nor am I aware of any anywhere near the city. Certainly not any reasonably reachable by public transportation.

On the other hand, I've been to Belle Isle thousands of times [[I'm there once or twice a week most weeks), spent much of my childhood going there, have paid taxes to support it all of my adult life, have given money to the Friends regularly, and have worked on clean ups, etc. for years. Like a lot of people I am very leery of something that will impose an admission charge for a place that has been free to all people, rich and poor, for 140+ years. Frankly, to justify charging $11 admission to a public park near the poorest part of one of the poorest cities in the country, the state is going to have a lot to prove to me and is going to have to do a pretty spectacular job of maintaining and improving the park.

**motz** · October-16-13, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

This has been held out by some as one of the benefits of the proposed admission fee for Belle Isle. But, other than the already-free Milliken Park on the Riverwalk, where is the nearest state park to Detroit?

I have a vague recollection of going ice fishing with my grandfather near one up by Algonac, but other than that I don't think I've ever had occasion to use a state park in Michigan, nor am I aware of any anywhere near the city. Certainly not any reasonably reachable by public transportation.

Here is a crappy incomplete list because apparently recreation areas don't count as State Parks? There are a bunch of recreation areas around here, and they are fairly nice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...an_state_parks

Regardless, if there are any improvements at all to Belle Isle period, its going to be better than the city would've done. All of this clamoring about how terrible the DNR is and how Snyder is going to ruin it and price everyone out or whatever todays kick is, the city could not and did not manage the Isle properly. If they had instituted a fee to enter Belle Isle, then I can almost bet you that money would've found its way to other part of government, just as claimed with the DNR. This is the least of two evils honestly. Seems like a running theme in government.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-16-13, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

The state's "help" has not often been all that helpful to Detroiters. Although I think state operation of the park is basically a good idea, many here will need to be won over since we have little historic reason to trust Lansing to act in our best interests.

I do acknowledge the mutual distrust -- but for those with an open mind I think we're seeing a new willingness by our State to engage with our City. We need to move past those who can't let history go and move forward creating new history. We also need to move past those who can't get past the politics. Sure, Snyder has a different approach to government. We don't need to agree with him to acknowledge that he's entended a helping hand like no governor in ages.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-16-13, 04:59 PM

Zug -- the only difference then is that the State 'might' actually do something -- while the City has proven that they'll do nothing [[except play politics). That's a big difference in favor of the citizens in my book. Plus, I like that the State will have to pay attention to Detroit. It'll be good for them to get their feet wet. Sort of like when they send in those few crews of State Police to start learning how to work in an urban environment.