Heir wants Eliza Howell Park back

[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 ...

[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.

[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.

[Novine]

Bailey, turn off the computer and go out and visit some of the "parks" in southeast Michigan. You'll find many parks that don't include playgrounds or baseball fields or roads or paved parking lots. They're natural areas and considered a park as much as the baseball complex or swimming pool or playground areas that also is called a park. The argument that a natural area is not a park isn't going to fly in court of law or public opinion. Move along to some other point.

[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."

[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.