Heir wants Eliza Howell Park back

[BVos]

Here's an interesting article from the DetNews about the heir to the family that donated the land Eliza Howell park is on:

http://detnews.com/article/20091118/...k-from-Detroit

[rjlj]

I like this quote. The people that run the city are it's worst enemy.

"About four years ago, he went to former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's administration with a pitch to bring a commercial and residential project to the land. Cheyne said he would release the deed restriction and develop the property, with the hopes of bringing in a big-box grocery store and new homes.
The city would gain property taxes and jobs. Neighbors would get higher quality shopping options, he said. Cheyne would make money.
Months, then years, went by without return phone calls, Cheyne said. He partly faults ignoring Kilpatrick's staffers' suggestion that he hire their hand-picked consultant to help push the deal. "

[CountrySquire]

That article was interesting! I spent a little time there in my high school days. The park had a bad rep then.

I say leave it as a park, if this guy's itching to do some development in the city, buy up an abondoned warehouse, factory or whatever and have at it.

[Danny]

I say give the park and its neighborhood to Redford TWP. They can take care it more than Detroit.

[dcmorrison12]

This seems like a great opportunity for Detroit to start Rightsizing. I mean, someone is knocking at their door! It's an easy way out, and we should take it. Give the damned land back, we can't take care of it anyways. Detroit is too big as it is, please, TAKE THE PARK AWAY FROM US!

[Detroitnerd]

Oh, this is just a grab at greenfield development within the city. And how long do you think they'll stay before they leave an empty complex, having made their profits? No, this is a bad deal.

Say what you will [[rightly) about Kilpatrick, but one of his best moves was to demand that gas stations be built on the sites of derelict or current gas stations. Developers will brownfield or grayfield the entire city. These greenfields are assets. Let's not be too hasty to lose them forever for a quick buck.

[jtf1972]

Note how he does not wish to do anything himself to maintain or improve the park that he has such affection for. He simply notes the problems.

[jlnascar]

I used to hang out in that park years ago, some interesting things use to go on.
As far as giving it back it appears to me we have another rich developer trying to get more into his pocket developing building that are not needed.

[econ expat]

Must have been a sweet deal his ancestors cut with the city. They picked up that farm and land for back taxes during the Depression, so really only owned the land maybe 5-6 years, if that.
Some of the grandchildren of the owners who lost that farm in the Depression are still in Detroit area [[ I know 2 of them)

[CountrySquire]

Must have been a sweet deal his ancestors cut with the city. They picked up that farm and land for back taxes during the Depression, so really only owned the land maybe 5-6 years, if that.
Some of the grandchildren of the owners who lost that farm in the Depression are still in Detroit area [[ I know 2 of them)

Neat!! What else can you tell us about Brigthmoor history? What you say makes sense as the development in that area is largely post war.

[iheartthed]

Absurd.

I mean, if he is legally entitled to reclaiming the land then that's one thing. But to frame this as some good will gesture for the community is absurd.

[Meddle]

" to bring a commercial and residential project to the land. Cheyne said he would release the deed restriction and develop the property, with the hopes of bringing in a big-box grocery store and new homes."

That's probably the last thing that's needed in that area. Telegraph is lined with carcasses of similar big ideas.


By the way, which one are they talking about, North or South?

[eno]

Isn't that area of the park a flood plane. It would be impractical to pitch a development there.

[bailey]

Note how he does not wish to do anything himself to maintain or improve the park that he has such affection for. He simply notes the problems.

Yup..did nothing to get the city to improve the park....

Cheyne said he's been flexible with the city when it needed his cooperation.
About 15 years ago, Detroit wanted him to release several acres along Fenkell so the city could build a sewer plant. He did, but as a condition, required Detroit to add more playground equipment and tennis courts near the park entrance. Now the nets are down and the playground equipment has been swallowed by weeds and tall grass.

Detroit wants to keep the park it needs to "maintain" it as such. Otherwise give it back. One less headache to deal with.

[Detroitnerd]

"I asked the city to do something to improve this park 15 YEARS AGO and didn't have to spend a penny. Now they should give it to me so I can make a few mil developing a big box Detroit doesn't need." Sheesh ...

[econ expat]

Neat!! What else can you tell us about Brigthmoor history? What you say makes sense as the development in that area is largely post war.

Personally, I don't know alot of Brightmoor history.
I emailed a link for the news story and already heard back from one of the 'heirs'
The man suing the city is not one of her relatives. She recalls in 1933 that her grandfather was 'laid out' for his funeral wake in his farmhouse. The farmhouse was located near the present day Murphy school.And that the farm lost for back taxes within a couple years. I have seen old plat maps, the Perry family owned the north 1/2 of 'Eliza Howell 'as well as the land to the east along 5 Mile, to Lahser Rd. The maps, etc are at the redford Twp historical society 'red schoolhouse' on Beech Daly Rd.
Brightmoor development started early 1920's, before the Great Depression and well before WW2. Indoor plumbing was an option added later as homeowners could afford it. It was obvious by some of the houses I was in that the 'additions' were the part of the house that contained the bathrooms. Due to the Depression, the mostly Appalacian settlers and the 'shacks' , etc Brightmoor was sometimes called 'Hooverville'[[not Hooterville ) during the Depression.
Ah, that's been discussed in past DY threads and other internet postings. Easy enough to google BE Taylor Brightmoor subdivision..

[Detroitnerd]

I've often thought that the fictional "Rosewood Manor" in Jack Conroy's 1930s Detroit novel "The Disinherited" was based on Brightmoor.

[bailey]

"I asked the city to do something to improve this park 15 YEARS AGO and didn't have to spend a penny. Now they should give it to me so I can make a few mil developing a big box Detroit doesn't need." Sheesh ...

First of all, why is it his responsibility to do any thing? The deed is conditional upon the city upholding it's end of the deal. Clearly the city is not.

Further...and just as clear- he accepted services to the park in lieu of a cash payment for property the City needed and he controlled. Would you require him to get the cash from the city THEN go out and use it to purchase new equipment?

Detroit ...as is so often pointed out here... has far too much parkland to deal with. It cannot be maintained and they [[generally) can not be sold. Give it back. Make it his problem. Generate tax revenue...or blight tickets.. either way, it;s not the city's problem anymore.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroit ...as is so often pointed out here... has far too much parkland to deal with. It cannot be maintained and they [[generally) can not be sold. Give it back. Make it his problem. Generate tax revenue...or blight tickets.. either way, it;s not the city's problem anymore.

Sorry, but greenfields are priceless in urban environments. The value of the plot of greenfield land, even reverted to nature, is not worth sacrificing for a big-box that's going to be vacant in less than 10 years. Once it's gone, it will cost millions to turn a polluted grayfield back into a greenfield. Who'll cough that up when a few years of "revenue" have been generated? Nobody.

I'm not saying the city is being saintly, but I think this guy is just trying to turn a buck and has no commitment to the city. And I'm not surprised when people get on board the "revenue" game with the same old enduring lack of long-term vision.

[bailey]

Sorry, but greenfields are priceless in urban environments. The value of the plot of greenfield land, even reverted to nature, is not worth sacrificing for a big-box that's going to be vacant in less than 10 years. Once it's gone, it will cost millions to turn a polluted grayfield back into a greenfield. Who'll cough that up when a few years of "revenue" have been generated? Nobody.

I'm not saying the city is being saintly, but I think this guy is just trying to turn a buck and has no commitment to the city. And I'm not surprised when people get on board the "revenue" game with the same old enduring lack of long-term vision.

Well, since it's priceless and all, Detroit should honor the requirements of the conditional gift and stop letting the park rot. The restrictive covenants in the deed control here---Maintain the park as a park or give it back. Pretty simple.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, since it's priceless and all, Detroit should honor the requirements of the conditional gift and stop letting the park rot. The restrictive covenants in the deed control here---Maintain the park as a park or give it back. Pretty simple.

Nature doesn't rot.

[scuola]

Isn't Detroit mostly a green field at this point given the nearly 40 acres of land that is vacant and overgrown with wild grasses and brush? Detroit needs to centralize and consolidate property and resources. That means giving up certain properties.

Step 1 should be to identify the parks which are most important and let the rest go. Parks can be built later when they have the money. Roads can be torn up, abandoned buildings torn down, and yes, trees planted.

Look at the new state park along the riverfront downtown!!!

[Detroitnerd]

Scuola: Almost none of Detroit is greenfield.

Here's the situation as I understand it:

A greenfield is a parcel that has never been seriously developed. Developers prize these parcels because they require zero environmental remediation. Basically, you go in, you dig a hole, you put in a building. No soil testing, no fixing up the land so it can be used. It's ALL profit.

Grayfields are parcels that have been developed before, usually for commercial or residential. They require some remediation before you can build upon them. There might be lead in the soil, pollution. The history of the site must be researched by an accredited group and a decision must be taken on how much remediation is necessary before you can build upon it.

Brownfields are parcels that have been used for industry, usually heavy industry. This can require research, extensive remediation, soil removal, soil disposal, more soil testing, and, finally, the site can become a place where a home or a store can be built.

I would say that probably 90 percent of vacant land in Detroit is either grayfield or brownfield. And many of the brownfields are so polluted that they have been designated as Superfund sites by the federal government.

See how ludicrous this is? A grayfield requires simple remediation by a developer. It improves the land. It is build responsibly.

Basically, what we're saying here is that, for a little bit of revenue and because of some simple maintenance issues, we should give greenfields to developers so our kids can play in grayfields and brownfields, until, one day, we have the money to publicly fund remediation to turn these into environmentally safe places, which we gave away. As they say: "That don't make no sense."

[bailey]

Nature doesn't rot.

Irrelevant. Detroit doesn't own the land if the park is left to revert to nature, because it has ceased to be maintained as a "park".

But I suppose this [[and any future issue with the 30+ other parks that have similar deed language) will have to be litigated. Years will have to be devoted to answering the question of what a "park" really is. Because, of course, thousands [[maybe hundreds of thousands?) of dollars are better spent fighting to justify why Detroit should not be held to perform on the covenant instead of ACTUALLY performing.

Basically, what we're saying here is that, for a little bit of revenue and because of some simple maintenance issues, we should give greenfields to developers so our kids can play in grayfields and brownfields, until, one day, we have the money to publicly fund remediation to turn these into environmentally safe places, which we gave away. As they say: "That don't make no sense."

That's a complete mischaracterization of what is going on here. No one is saying give the guy the land just because detroit needs to sell property...ala Kwame's plan for Rouge Park. Detroit CONDITIONALLY owns the property. DETROIT has not satisfied that condition. Unless Detroit cures the deficiency in it's performance, property REVERTS to the heirs of the grantor. This is neither uncommon nor somehow shady.

[scuola]

Detroitnerd:

Greenfields are cheeper. So what? Those evil capitalists who want to build things that people use. Dastardly! I'm on a different plane of thinking here. Everyone presumably knows the technical definition of a greenfield--but according to the American Institute of Architects, Detroit has nearly 40 ABANDONED square miles that are reverting to grasslands and brushland.

Detroit needs to consolidate resources and focus on doing what it CAN do exceedingly well--and that means giving up resources it can't control. No worries: when I live in a city and want to enjoy a bike ride or nature walk in a vegetated open space, I don't ask my self whether the land I'm jogging on meets the technical defintion of "never having been developed," rather I ask myself how enjoyable the park is. Detroit can build enjoyable parkland later after it has first mastered building new enjoyable residential neighborhoods. Which it is working on to their credit.