Heir wants Eliza Howell Park back

[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.

[bailey]

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.

The nature areas I frequent don't contain abandoned boats, are not dumping grounds, are not filled with rusting and rotting and unusable playground equipment, are not partially mowed by local people who wish to use a portion of it as their own private driving range, are not used as a secluded locale for prostitutes to ply the trade....etc etc. In short, there is an enormous difference between nature preserve and abandonment.

[Novine]

"Detroit can build enjoyable parkland later after it has first mastered building new enjoyable residential neighborhoods."

Aiming for most clueless post? You can't have enjoyable residential neighborhoods without good parks. You don't accomplish that by giving up the land that you already have for parks to acquire polluted land for parks later, which is what you are advocating. The existing parkland is an asset around which Detroit can build quality neighborhoods. The idea that you build good neighborhoods by destroying the value of the park is as stupid as it is short-sighted.

[Novine]

"In short, there is a difference between nature preserve and abandonment."

How much of the 130+ acres fits that definition?

[bailey]

"In short, there is a difference between nature preserve and abandonment."

How much of the 130+ acres fits that definition?

By the allegations made, it sounds like all of it has been abandoned. But of course there still is the rest of the 250 acres that will not and can not be developed. So there ya go... 120 acres of unspoiled illegal dumping grounds.

But of course the simple solution to the entire matter is to simply mow the damn grass and maintian the place.

[scuola]

"Detroit can build enjoyable parkland later after it has first mastered building new enjoyable residential neighborhoods."

Aiming for most clueless post? You can't have enjoyable residential neighborhoods without good parks.

Ha, nice dig--but at 250 acres this parcel isn't a neighborhood park even if it was well taken care of. It's regional in nature. There are other regional parks that would benefit from consolidated resources. Regardless, the overarching point, is of course, that Detroit needs to decide what is essential and then reorganize the city and it's resources according to that. Parks can be built when needed--look at the fine state park that was just built on the Detroit Riverfront downtown. Mine is a question of priority. Do you want a safe neighborhood well patrolled by police, with good schools, and robust local activity centers or a few acres of "never been built on land." Come on, be honest with yourself. There is nothing special about this piece of property.

You don't accomplish that by giving up the land that you already have for parks to acquire polluted land for parks later, which is what you are advocating.

I'm saying you have 40 square miles of abandoned property where you can build beautiful wonderful parks--but there are not enough people in the city to use them! Build strong police, schools, community centers, etc. FIRST. Interestingly, a common brownfield remediation technique is to plant grasses with deep roots that "drink" up toxins left over by heavy industry.

The existing parkland is an asset around which Detroit can build quality neighborhoods. The idea that you build good neighborhoods by destroying the value of the park is as stupid as it is short-sighted.

Short-sighted is to bitterly cling to resources which won't help you build the future you want to enjoy. Everyone knows that. You have to let go of some things in order to enjoy other things.

[BVos]

Nothing special about the property? The Rouge River runs right through it in a natural setting and connects to a chain of parks miles long along the Rouge River. About 1/3 of the park is covered in old-growth forest. The topography is among the last remaining natural topography in the Detroit region. The rest is largely covered in urban prairie. Do you understand the environmental value of the property alone: the carbon stored in the soil and vegetation; the ground water stored on the site slowing storm surge; the sediments from storm water run off being removed naturally; the cooling affect that the lack of pavement as well as the hydration/shade of the vegetation has; etc., etc., etc.? And I haven't even got into the aesthetic, psychological and property value benefits of the park.

Phytoremediation, remediating soil through plants that take up contaminants from the soil, is a relatively new and relatively unproven technique on large scales with severe contamination. You still have the problem of the plants themselves and it's seeds containing the contaminants which must then be harvested and disposed of as hazardous waste. It's hardly a panacea and not a natural, pastoral remediation technique as you seem to imply.

The parks is what Detroit needs to build the future it wants to enjoy. Cities around the world would kill to have an asset like Eliza Howell Park [[obviously with a much stronger purpose) and a natural setting like this is a huge asset to the city.

As others have stated above, this area is littered with failing and declining commercial property up and down Telegraph. I don't understand why this guy things a commercial development of several hundred acres would be successful. It will fail within 5 years or less with the glut of vacant commercial space in the area. It would be far better to buy some of the vacant existing properties and rehab them and/or tear it down and build new than build on this natural area.

[detroitsgwenivere]

Dnerd, Novine, Bvos, You all say it best. Now for a possible solution...

If park maintainance is REALLY the only issue here, and so many of us REALLY use the park or don't want to see the park go, then why don't all of us get together and just clean the park up? I know we pay taxes for this sort of thing, BUT if we Detroiters [[and the surrounding communities) take the initiative we could prove through our actions that we do not desire to let the park go. I'd bet money that there are local businesses and non-profits, like the Greening of Detroit, that would donate resources for this sort of thing. Wayne State would jump all over it if given a chance, maybe even Wc3 or U of M Dearborn. The attention given to the park might draw some newcomers and regulars. Community presence might deter blatant illegal activity if more people are around to report it. If some press were invited, it could turn into one hell of a party!

[Todd_Scott]

You're right, Bvos. Eliza Howell Park is very special and unique. It is a key component for our Detroit greenway plans. Losing it would be a travesty.

[MichMatters]

This is one of the few things Kilpatrick ever did right. I'm glad the guy was ignored. With all of the vacant land around this park, and this man feels like he has to build in the park? This is a power grab so that he doesn't have to pay for land to develop. This guy is the epitome of a predatory developer, and he should be ashamed he's name dropping his family to do such a thing to the park.

At the very least, there are serious questions as to whether any more needs to be built in that area at all, and to add insult to injury he wants to build on parkland? I don't care how badly it's maintained, this is just offensive and silly on its face.

[BVos]

MichMatters,

If you read the statements by Cheyne [[if they're reliable) he says he was ignored because he didn't hire the consultant recommended by Kilpatrick. So KK didn't do right purposefully.

[scuola]

Nothing special about the property? The Rouge River runs right through it in a natural setting and connects to a chain of parks miles long along the Rouge River. About 1/3 of the park is covered in old-growth forest. The topography is among the last remaining natural topography in the Detroit region. The rest is largely covered in urban prairie. Do you understand the environmental value of the property alone: the carbon stored in the soil and vegetation; the ground water stored on the site slowing storm surge; the sediments from storm water run off being removed naturally; the cooling affect that the lack of pavement as well as the hydration/shade of the vegetation has; etc., etc., etc.? And I haven't even got into the aesthetic, psychological and property value benefits of the park.

Lol--I love parks. And you don't have to tell me the benefits of stormwater management. But all of the benefits, even aesthetic and psychological, of vegetated land can be attained in any of the other parks in the city--all of which would benefit from a Detroit that has consolidated its resources to provide a city people actually want to MOVE to. There is no shortage of property for a well designed park, like the new State Park that was just placed downtown [[restored wetlands and all). But we need the development, jobs, property tax revenue, savings for consumers, and shorter travel distance that a big box retailer will provide more than we need another park. And just in luck, we have someone who wants to invest millions of dollars into this property. Call me crazy, but people are more important than trees.

Phytoremediation, remediating soil through plants that take up contaminants from the soil, is a relatively new and relatively unproven technique on large scales with severe contamination. You still have the problem of the plants themselves and it's seeds containing the contaminants which must then be harvested and disposed of as hazardous waste. It's hardly a panacea and not a natural, pastoral remediation technique as you seem to imply.

The parks is what Detroit needs to build the future it wants to enjoy. Cities around the world would kill to have an asset like Eliza Howell Park [[obviously with a much stronger purpose) and a natural setting like this is a huge asset to the city.

As others have stated above, this area is littered with failing and declining commercial property up and down Telegraph. I don't understand why this guy things a commercial development of several hundred acres would be successful. It will fail within 5 years or less with the glut of vacant commercial space in the area. It would be far better to buy some of the vacant existing properties and rehab them and/or tear it down and build new than build on this natural area.

Big box retail is incredibly successful, much to the bane of urban romanticists who have lustful notions of small town shops where an old gray haired man greets you at the door with a hug and a candy jar like your ol'Grandpa jack at Christmastime. But most of us want to afford to buy the things we want--and while it may be a fun past-time, driving from shop to shop just isn't practical in our time crunched world. Give me Meijer at 3am.

But yes-let's ask people to move to Detroit not because of public safety, schools, or quality infrastructure, but because of...one lame park--uh, what was the name of this park? Eliza blah blah blah?--The lack of perspective on this message board is actually quite alarming. Please ask yourselves if it's really Detroit you're concerned about or protecting your own romantic notions that this is a pristine expanse of land like something out of a Jack London novel? It's not. Honestly. It isn't.

[scuola]

This is one of the few things Kilpatrick ever did right. I'm glad the guy was ignored. With all of the vacant land around this park, and this man feels like he has to build in the park? This is a power grab so that he doesn't have to pay for land to develop. This guy is the epitome of a predatory developer, and he should be ashamed he's name dropping his family to do such a thing to the park.

At the very least, there are serious questions as to whether any more needs to be built in that area at all, and to add insult to injury he wants to build on parkland? I don't care how badly it's maintained, this is just offensive and silly on its face.

Yeah, that evil guy wants to actually invest millions of dollars into a property in the city of Detroit. We all know that's a very profitable venture with very little risk right? The fact is, given the state of the city there is little chance this happens without the subsidy of an affordable piece of property to put it on. How dastardly! Give me a break.

[econ expat]

Since Cheyne's family only owned the land briefly, there can't be too much 'sentimental value' to see the park maintained. Even without playground equipment and restrooms maintained, Eliza Howell can still be considered as a 'park' due to the prairie and forest growth and river wetlands.
Turn over park to Redford to be better managed? Huh? Reminds me of the old rumor that part of Detroit was on a 'Hong Kong' lease and would revert back to Redford Twp. Right.
And Redford Twp's 'planning'? Real genius. Over 1/2 their schools closed as the baby boom ended. Demographics switched to senior 'empty nesters'.Redford's solution to boost the population- convert closed school properties into housing developments. And should the new housing attract more young families, where would the additional classrooms be built as needed? It can be very expensive to buy up housing stock to rebuild schools.

[Russix]

Discgolf course?

[MichMatters]

MichMatters,

If you read the statements by Cheyne [[if they're reliable) he says he was ignored because he didn't hire the consultant recommended by Kilpatrick. So KK didn't do right purposefully.

Yeah, I realize the outcome was the result of neglect and/or corruption, but I'll take them [[positive outcomes) any way I can get 'em. Even a broken clock is right two times a day, as they say. To know that corruption saved the day is, indeed, ironic, but I couldn't care less. lol

I can't believe this guy is so cynically name-dropping the family name to try to get free land to develop completely unnecessary development on. His motives are so transparent so as to be see-through.

[royce]

I'm in agreement with Bailey and Scuola. This is ONE DETROIT PARK that can be let go. It's an isolated park, only one entrance to get in, which reduces foot and car traffic from the other three directions. Also, it's not accessible or walkable by the part of the neighborhood that could benefit from its presence the most, the east side.

I have argued over the years that this park could benefit from some residential development. The heir/developer did mention that he was interested in developing the park for both commerial and residential use. Now, those of you that say parkland is sacred and should never be developed should go to this park and see for yourself why it is expendable, given the reasons I gave above and those given by Bailey and Scuola.

Now, the outer ring of trees that surround the park could be and should be saved. However the inner-ring land could be developed without a substantial loss of trees. Most of it contains the baseball diamonds and flat land anyway.

Eliza Howell Park was a poorly planned park. It's demise will benefit Detroit more than hurt it. With the available vacant land throughout Brightmoor, playfields/parks can be developed elsewhere and serve the community better than what Eliza Howell Park could ever do.

[Novine]

"we have someone who wants to invest millions of dollars into this property. Call me crazy, but people are more important than trees."

scuola, you sound like some of the hayseed local officials I run into in rural townships who get suckered by slick talking developers and corporate officials with this kind of talk. These officials are promised the world if their township will let them convert some woodlands and wetlands into the next center of commerce. The big box guys come in and make their money but the tax revenues never cover the costs of providing services. Then those get followed by ticky-tacky retail spin-offs that turn into a commercial wasteland of sameness that die off when the next set of big boxes get built further down the freeway.

Your belief that the salvation of the Brightmoor area will come from converting a park into a location for big boxes either shows you don't have a clue as to what makes a successful city or your shilling for someone who's looking to make a buck.

[Novine]

"Also, it's not accessible or walkable by the part of the neighborhood that could benefit from its presence the most, the east side."

So? Fix the problem of access. It's not that difficult and doesn't cost a lot of money.

[detroitbred]

I grew up in that area, and Eliza Howell has NEVER been a "park". It was where many people went to take part in illegal activities, etc. Anyone with any sense back then [[ and now) stayed far away from it. Bad things happened there and we were told from the time we were little not to go there. Access to it [[ or lack there of) never made any sense. It has preety much always been a big empty, weed/trash filled space.

[Novine]

"Access to it [[ or lack there of) never made any sense. It has preety much always been a big empty, weed/trash filled space."

There's your problem. If you don't provide convenient public access and people don't use the park, that provides the space for criminal elements to take hold. Providing access to the park will encourage usage which will discourage a lot of the criminal activity.

[bailey]

"Access to it [[ or lack there of) never made any sense. It has preety much always been a big empty, weed/trash filled space."

There's your problem. If you don't provide convenient public access and people don't use the park, that provides the space for criminal elements to take hold. Providing access to the park will encourage usage which will discourage a lot of the criminal activity.

So? Fix the problem of access. It's not that difficult and doesn't cost a lot of money.

...which is EXACTLY what the city is not now nor has been doing for the better part of 20 years... thus the demand by the heirs for the return of the property.

[EastsideAl]

Always dangerous activity there? My memories of Eliza Howell come from back in the '70s, when I used to hang out with some Telegraph cruisers and hotrodders. That park was the place to hang out for the whole Brightmoor/Rosedale/west side of Detroit part of the crowd. Sort of like Hines Park, but in the city. We generally smoked some dope, drank a little beer, played some frisbee, played some music, opened some hoods and talked cars, and pretty much just chilled out and partied there. Later on at night when the lights went down we maybe got it on with the girls a bit there, but that certainly wasn't what I'd call a dangerous activity.

[Detroitnerd]

I think one litmus test for this sort of thing would be: Would this be acceptable in Birmingham?

What if some heirs who once owned Booth Park complained that the new landscaping wasn't in keeping with the intention of their ancestors' deal with the city and wanted to build "more shopping options" there? Hey, it's more tax revenue, right?

[bailey]

I think one litmus test for this sort of thing would be: Would this be acceptable in Birmingham?

very little that happens in detroit would pass that litmus test.

What if some heirs who once owned Booth Park complained that the new landscaping wasn't in keeping with the intention of their ancestors' deal with the city and wanted to build "more shopping options" there? Hey, it's more tax revenue, right?

Pretty convenient description of the Howell park situation..

If Booth park had hookers, drug deals, piles of garbage, rotting playground equipment, and was not mowed or in any way cared for for 20 years.... yeah, I think that the same would happen. But in Birmingham, would it ever get that far?